| Signal | LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) | Delta | Mistral Small 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 33 | -17 | |
Pricing | 30 | +30 | |
Context window size | 72 | -- | |
Recency | 100 | +44 | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -50 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 5 | 2 wins |
8
days higher
3
days
19
days higher
Liquid AI
Mistral AI
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) saves you $9.00/month
That's $108.00/year compared to Mistral Small 3 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) | Mistral Small 3 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 59 | 59 | Mistral Small 3 |
| Rank | #235 | #234 | Mistral Small 3 |
| Quality Rank | #235 | #234 | Mistral Small 3 |
| Adoption Rank | #235 | #234 | Mistral Small 3 |
| Parameters | 1.2B | 24B | -- |
| Context Window | 33K | 33K | -- |
| Pricing | Free | $0.05/$0.08/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 33 | 50 | Mistral Small 3 |
| Pricing | 30 | 0 | LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) |
| Context window size | 72 | 72 | LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) |
| Recency | 100 | 56 | LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 70 | Mistral Small 3 |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 59/100 (rank #235), placing it in the top 19% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 59/100 (rank #234), placing it in the top 20% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Compare the cost per quality point to find the best value for your specific workload.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (33K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (59/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) and Mistral Small 3 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.10000000000000142 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free)
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free)
100% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free)
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free)
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free)
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Liquid AI
| Capability | LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) | Mistral Small 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Callingdiffers | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Modediffers | ||
| Reasoningdiffers | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Liquid AI
Mistral AI
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) saves you $0.1860/month
That's 100% cheaper than Mistral Small 3 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) | Mistral Small 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 33K | 33K |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | 16,384 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Jan 20, 2026 | Jan 30, 2025 |
Mistral Small 3 scores 59/100 (rank #234) compared to LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free)'s 59/100 (rank #235), giving it a 0-point advantage. Mistral Small 3 is the stronger overall choice, though LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) is ranked #235 and Mistral Small 3 is ranked #234 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) is cheaper at $0.00/M output tokens vs Mistral Small 3's $0.08/M output tokens - 80.0x more expensive. Input token pricing: LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) at $0.00/M vs Mistral Small 3 at $0.05/M.
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free) has a larger context window of 32,768 tokens compared to Mistral Small 3's 32,768 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.