Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 5 vs LFM2.5-VL-450M

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
65.32/100
No comparison
N/A
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 5 #29 (Estimated); LFM2.5-VL-450M unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 5 and LFM2.5-VL-450M share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 36 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 5; 7 to LFM2.5-VL-450M.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
0
Claude Sonnet 5 only
36
LFM2.5-VL-450M only
7
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Sonnet 5 makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; LFM2.5-VL-450M is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Sonnet 5 and LFM2.5-VL-450M finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Claude Sonnet 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for LFM2.5-VL-450M. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Sonnet 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while LFM2.5-VL-450M is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Sonnet 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for LFM2.5-VL-450M.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 5LFM2.5-VL-450MComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 outputLFM2.5-VL-450M$0 input / $0 outputLFM2.5-VL-450M has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 5Not availableLFM2.5-VL-450MNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 5Not availableLFM2.5-VL-450MNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 51MLFM2.5-VL-450M128KClaude Sonnet 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5LFM2.5-VL-450MResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 80.4%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 84.7%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 57.4%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 81.2%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1607—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 46.7%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 55.4%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1388—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 39.2%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.7%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 90.1%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 28.2%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 80.5%—Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —21.1%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5LFM2.5-VL-450MResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 85.2%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 63.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 78.3%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 28.1%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 80.4%—Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 42.7%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 61.5%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 71.5%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 53.6%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5LFM2.5-VL-450MResult
AA-LCRSource 70.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 16.9%—Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5LFM2.5-VL-450MResult
HLESource 57.4%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 43.2%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.4%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 39.6%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 15.3%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.3%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 37.3%—Not comparable
GPQASource —25.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —19.3%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5LFM2.5-VL-450MResult
CharXivSource 88.3%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 77%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 77.3%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1314—Not comparable
MMMUSource —32.7%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —58.4%Not comparable
CountBenchSource —73.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5LFM2.5-VL-450MResult
IFEvalSource —61.2%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or LFM2.5-VL-450M?

Claude Sonnet 5 and LFM2.5-VL-450M are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or LFM2.5-VL-450M?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.4 versus 20.5. LFM2.5-VL-450M stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.