| Signal | LFM2-24B-A2B | Delta | Sonar |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 17 | -33 | |
Pricing | 0 | -1 | |
Context window size | 72 | -9 | |
Recency | 100 | +45 | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 1 wins | of 5 | 3 wins |
7
days higher
7
days
16
days higher
Liquid AI
Perplexity
LFM2-24B-A2B saves you $141.00/month
That's $1692.00/year compared to Sonar at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | LFM2-24B-A2B | Sonar | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 53 | 53 | Sonar |
| Rank | #261 | #260 | Sonar |
| Quality Rank | #261 | #260 | Sonar |
| Adoption Rank | #261 | #260 | Sonar |
| Parameters | 24B | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 33K | 127K | Sonar |
| Pricing | $0.03/$0.12/M | $1.00/$1.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 17 | 50 | Sonar |
| Pricing | 0 | 1 | Sonar |
| Context window size | 72 | 81 | Sonar |
| Recency | 100 | 55 | LFM2-24B-A2B |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 20 | LFM2-24B-A2B |
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 53/100 (rank #261), placing it in the top 10% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 53/100 (rank #260), placing it in the top 11% 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.
LFM2-24B-A2B offers 93% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $2.25/month with LFM2-24B-A2B vs $30.00/month with Sonar - a $27.75 monthly difference.
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. LFM2-24B-A2B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (127K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.12/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (53/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
LFM2-24B-A2B and Sonar are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.09999999999999432 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
LFM2-24B-A2B
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
LFM2-24B-A2B
93% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
LFM2-24B-A2B
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
LFM2-24B-A2B
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
LFM2-24B-A2B
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Liquid AI
| Capability | LFM2-24B-A2B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Searchdiffers | ||
| Image Output |
Liquid AI
Perplexity
LFM2-24B-A2B saves you $2.80/month
That's 93% cheaper than Sonar 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 | LFM2-24B-A2B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 33K | 127K |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | -- |
| Open Source | Yes | No |
| Created | Feb 25, 2026 | Jan 27, 2025 |
Sonar scores 53/100 (rank #260) compared to LFM2-24B-A2B's 53/100 (rank #261), giving it a 0-point advantage. Sonar is the stronger overall choice, though LFM2-24B-A2B may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
LFM2-24B-A2B is ranked #261 and Sonar is ranked #260 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.
LFM2-24B-A2B is cheaper at $0.12/M output tokens vs Sonar's $1.00/M output tokens - 8.3x more expensive. Input token pricing: LFM2-24B-A2B at $0.03/M vs Sonar at $1.00/M.
Sonar has a larger context window of 127,072 tokens compared to LFM2-24B-A2B's 32,768 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.