LFM2.5-24B-A2B vs GPT-5.5: which should you choose in 2026?
LFM2.5-24B-A2B (by Liquid AI) and GPT-5.5 (by OpenAI) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
GPT-5.5 has the larger context window (1,050,000 tokens vs 128,000 tokens).
Choose LFM2.5-24B-A2B if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
Choose GPT-5.5 if…
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
- • you need image inputs
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | 42.1% Artificial Analysis |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests. Pass@1 | — | 67.0%±6.0 DataCurve |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | 83.1%±1.1 Terminal-Bench |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
A contamination-resistant benchmark refreshed on a fixed release cadence. Scores from different LiveBench releases must never be compared as the same protocol. Mean of category averages | — | 80.2% LiveBench |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score | — | 1477 ±4 |
Benchmark sources
- Arena AI leaderboard
- AutomationBench-AA: Agentic SaaS Workflow Benchmark
- DeepSWE 1.1 Leaderboard
- terminal-bench@2.1 Leaderboard
- LiveBench 2026-06-25 Leaderboard
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Oct 5, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Liquid AI | OpenAI |
| API provider | LiquidAI | OpenAI |
| Input context | 128,000 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens |
| Maximum output | 8,192 tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Oct 13, 2026 | Apr 24, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | 2025-12-01 |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text | File, Image, Text |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | No | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Base input (per 1M tokens) | $0.05 | $5.00 |
| Base output (per 1M tokens) | $0.70 | $30.00 |
| Higher-context pricing tiers | Base rate only |
|
| Price-comparison caveat | At least one model changes token rates above a prompt-token threshold. Base rates are shown, but an unconditional blended price ratio would not be like-for-like. | |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Oct 13, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing LFM2.5-24B-A2B from Liquid AI with GPT-5.5 from OpenAI? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | GPT-5.5 | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Ultimate required | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
LFM2.5-24B-A2B vs GPT-5.5 FAQ
Which is better, LFM2.5-24B-A2B or GPT-5.5?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison. GPT-5.5 has the larger context window (1,050,000 tokens vs 128,000 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Which model supports more context?
GPT-5.5 has the larger context window (1,050,000 tokens vs 128,000 tokens).
Can I switch between LFM2.5-24B-A2B and GPT-5.5?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More LFM2.5-24B-A2B comparisons
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Moonshot AI
Kimi K3.1 Pro is Moonshot AI's flagship open-weight multimodal reasoning model and a post-trained successor to Kimi K3, with a 1M-token context window.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is a multimodal model from MiniMax.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the October 17, 2026 snapshot of DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, served by DeepSeek under the deepseek-flash API model name.
Glimpse
Elorian
Glimpse is a multimodal visual reasoning model from Elorian, built for visual understanding and complex visual reasoning in the physical world.
Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Reflection
Beam 1.0 is Reflection's open-weight reasoning model for coding and long-horizon agentic workflows.
Mercury 3
Inception
Mercury 3 is a diffusion-based language model from Inception, and the lab's most capable model to date.
More GPT-5.5 comparisons
Muse Spark Open
Meta
Muse Spark Open is a coding-optimized open-weight model.
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon is Google's flagship reasoning model, built for complex software engineering, deep mathematical and scientific problem solving, and autonomous multi-step agents.
Muse Wonder
Meta
Muse Wonder is a frontier reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex personal and professional agentic tasks.
Claude Haiku 5.5
Anthropic
Claude Haiku 5.5 is Anthropic's small, fast model for high-volume, cost-sensitive work such as summarization, subagents, and browser use.
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is Anthropic's Sonnet-class model for well-scoped everyday work, succeeding Claude Sonnet 5 as a direct upgrade.
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.