LFM2 24B A2B vs Trinity Mini
Trinity Mini comes out ahead, 65 to 58 on our weighted score, though LFM2 24B A2B is 26% cheaper per token.
Liquid AILFM2 24B A2B
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.03 / $0.12
- Context33K
- Our pick
Arcee AITrinity Mini
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.045 / $0.15
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Trinity Mini is our pick
Trinity Mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against LFM2 24B A2B (58). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceLFM2 24B A2BLFM2 24B A2B $0.052 · Trinity Mini $0.071 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextTrinity MiniTrinity Mini 131,072 · LFM2 24B A2B 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsLFM2 24B A2B: Text · Trinity Mini: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | LFM2 24B A2B | Trinity Mini |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 58/100 | 65/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | LFM2 24B A2BLiquid AI | Trinity MiniArcee AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.03 (best) | $0.045 |
| Output | $0.12 (best) | $0.15 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.052 (best) | $0.071 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenLFM Open License v1.0 | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Feb 24, 2026 | Dec 1, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- LFM2 24B A2B$0.54
- Trinity Mini$0.75
Which should you choose?
Which is better: LFM2 24B A2B or Trinity Mini?
Trinity Mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against LFM2 24B A2B (58). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, LFM2 24B A2B or Trinity Mini?
LFM2 24B A2B is cheaper at $0.03 input / $0.12 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Trinity Mini costs $0.045 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.052 per million tokens for LFM2 24B A2B versus $0.071 for Trinity Mini (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. LFM2 24B A2B has not been scored yet and Trinity Mini has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for LFM2 24B A2B and Trinity Mini yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Trinity Mini has the largest context window at 131,072 tokens, against 32,768 for LFM2 24B A2B. Maximum output per response: LFM2 24B A2B up to 32,768, Trinity Mini up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
LFM2 24B A2B accepts text; Trinity Mini accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (LFM Open License v1.0 and OpenMDW-1.1), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
LFM2 24B A2B is the newest, released Feb 24, 2026. Trinity Mini came out Dec 1, 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen3.5 4BThree-way comparison
- LFM2 24B A2B vs Qwen3.5 4BAlibaba (Qwen)
- LFM2 24B A2B vs Gemma 4 E2B ITGoogle
- LFM2 24B A2B vs Schematron V2 TurboInference.net
- LFM2 24B A2B vs AutoGLM Phone 9B MultilingualZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Trinity Mini vs Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)Alibaba (Qwen)
- Trinity Mini vs AutoGLM Phone 9B MultilingualZ.ai (Zhipu)
