Schematron V2 Turbo vs LFM2 24B A2B
Too close to call on our weighted score (LFM2 24B A2B 58, Schematron V2 Turbo 55). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Inference.net
Schematron V2 Turbo
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.03 / $0.15
- Context128K
Liquid AILFM2 24B A2B
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.03 / $0.12
- Context33K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (LFM2 24B A2B 58/100, Schematron V2 Turbo 55/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: LFM2 24B A2B on price and Schematron V2 Turbo for long inputs. 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 · Schematron V2 Turbo $0.06 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSchematron V2 TurboSchematron V2 Turbo 128,000 · LFM2 24B A2B 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsSchematron V2 Turbo: Text · LFM2 24B A2B: Text
- Self-hostingLFM2 24B A2BPublishes downloadable weights (LFM Open License v1.0)
| Measure | Weight | Schematron V2 Turbo | LFM2 24B A2B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 58/100 |
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 | Schematron V2 TurboInference.net | LFM2 24B A2BLiquid AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.03 | $0.03 |
| Output | $0.15 | $0.12 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.06 | $0.052 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 5 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenLFM Open License v1.0 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 5 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Apr 16, 2026 | Feb 24, 2026 |
| 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.
- Schematron V2 Turbo$0.60
- LFM2 24B A2B$0.54
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Schematron V2 Turbo or LFM2 24B A2B?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (LFM2 24B A2B 58/100, Schematron V2 Turbo 55/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: LFM2 24B A2B on price and Schematron V2 Turbo for long inputs. 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, Schematron V2 Turbo or LFM2 24B A2B?
LFM2 24B A2B is cheaper at $0.03 input / $0.12 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Schematron V2 Turbo costs $0.03 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.052 per million tokens for LFM2 24B A2B versus $0.06 for Schematron V2 Turbo (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Schematron V2 Turbo has not been scored yet and LFM2 24B A2B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Schematron V2 Turbo and LFM2 24B A2B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Schematron V2 Turbo does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Schematron V2 Turbo has the largest context window at 128,000 tokens, against 32,768 for LFM2 24B A2B. Maximum output per response: Schematron V2 Turbo up to 8,192, LFM2 24B A2B up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Schematron V2 Turbo accepts text; LFM2 24B A2B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
LFM2 24B A2B publishes its weights (LFM Open License v1.0) and can be self-hosted; Schematron V2 Turbo is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Schematron V2 Turbo is the newest, released Apr 16, 2026. LFM2 24B A2B came out Feb 24, 2026.
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 Gemma 4 E2B ITThree-way comparison
- Schematron V2 Turbo vs Gemma 4 E2B ITGoogle
- Schematron V2 Turbo vs Hy-MT2-1.8BTencent
- Schematron V2 Turbo vs Qwen3.5 4BAlibaba (Qwen)
- LFM2 24B A2B vs Qwen3.5 4BAlibaba (Qwen)
- LFM2 24B A2B vs Gemma 4 E2B ITGoogle
- LFM2 24B A2B vs AutoGLM Phone 9B MultilingualZ.ai (Zhipu)
