AI Models · Open-Source vs Paid

LFM2.5-2.6B Open vs Claude Fable 5 (batch) Paid

LFM2.5-2.6B vs Claude Fable 5 (batch) compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Can the open-source model replace the paid one? Full 2026 breakdown.

Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai

Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.

LFM2.5-2.6BOpenLiquid
$0.35 /M input
$0.5 /M outputNo per-token fees if you self-host
TypeOpen-weight
Context window128K tokens
MultimodalNo
Self-hostYes
Claude Fable 5 (batch)PaidAnthropic
$5 /M input
$25 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
TypeProprietary
Context window1M tokens
MultimodalYes
Self-hostNo
Choose LFM2.5-2.6B if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose Claude Fable 5 (batch) if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.

LFM2.5-2.6B vs Claude Fable 5 (batch) specs

SpecLFM2.5-2.6BClaude Fable 5 (batch)Winner
MakerLiquidAnthropic–
TypeOpen-weightProprietaryLFM2.5-2.6B
Context window128K tokens1M tokensClaude Fable 5 (batch)
Input price$0.35/M · free self-host$5/MLFM2.5-2.6B
Output price$0.5/M · free self-host$25/MLFM2.5-2.6B
Vision / multimodalNoYesClaude Fable 5 (batch)
Tool / function callingYesYes= Tie
Self-hostableYesNo (API only)LFM2.5-2.6B
LicenseOpen weightsProprietaryLFM2.5-2.6B

Price gap & when to choose each

50×cheaper per output token

LFM2.5-2.6B is ~50× cheaper than Claude Fable 5 (batch) on output tokens ($0.5 vs $25 per M tokens).

Choose LFM2.5-2.6B if…
  • You want to self-host or run on your cloud
  • You prioritize data privacy & control
  • You want the lowest operating costs
  • You are building open or reproducible AI
Choose Claude Fable 5 (batch) if…
  • You want frontier performance through a managed API
  • You need the longer 1M context window
  • You value reliability & ecosystem
  • You don't want to manage infrastructure

Feature comparison

CapabilityLFM2.5-2.6BClaude Fable 5 (batch)
Open weights (downloadable)✓✗
Self-hostable✓✗
Runs fully offline✓✗
Vision / multimodal✗✓
Tool / function calling✓✓
1M+ context window✗✓

Benchmarks: LFM2.5-2.6B vs Claude Fable 5 (batch)

Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).

LFM2.5-2.6B
Claude Fable 5 (batch)
Intelligence index
8.4
49.6
Coding index
7.7
76.5
GPQA
55.8%
92.6%
Humanity's Last Exam
6.2%
55.5%
Long Context Reasoning
5.7%
82.3%
SciCode
14.4%
61%
τ-Bench Banking
7.2%
38.1%
Terminal-Bench
4.5%
84.6%
IFBench
–
63.5%
τ²-Bench
–
98.5%
Terminal-Bench Hard
–
62.9%
Speed
0 tok/s
0 tok/s
Latency
0s
0s
Intelligence per $
–
2.5

Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.

How LFM2.5-2.6B and Claude Fable 5 (batch) score

🏆 Best value & openness: LFM2.5-2.6B (4.4 vs 3.1 / 5)
CriterionLFM2.5-2.6BClaude Fable 5 (batch)
Cost-efficiency5.03.0
Context window3.55.0
Openness5.01.5
Self-hosting5.01.0
Multimodality3.55.0

Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.

What each model is

LFM2.5-2.6B Open

Liquid · Open-weight

LFM2.5-2.6B is a compact reasoning model from Liquid AI. It is suited for agent workflows, data extraction, RAG, and long-context processing. Liquid advises against using it for agentic coding or...

Claude Fable 5 (batch) Paid

Anthropic · Proprietary

Claude Fable 5 is a Mythos-class model from Anthropic, built for autonomous knowledge work and coding. It supports text, image, and file inputs with text output, with reasoning support and...

Other models in these families

These variants are tracked but not compared here — one page per family keeps the comparison readable.

Other variants tracked
LFM2.5-2.6B (free)LFM2.5-24B-A2B

Frequently asked questions

Is LFM2.5-2.6B as good as Claude Fable 5 (batch)?

LFM2.5-2.6B is open-weight and competitive on many tasks, but Claude Fable 5 (batch) may still lead on the hardest reasoning and agentic work. The gap keeps narrowing — benchmark both on your actual use case before deciding.

Can I run LFM2.5-2.6B locally?

Yes. LFM2.5-2.6B has open weights, so you can self-host it on your own GPUs or run it via a low-cost API. Claude Fable 5 (batch) is API-only and cannot be self-hosted.

How much cheaper is LFM2.5-2.6B?

LFM2.5-2.6B costs $0.5/M output vs $25/M for Claude Fable 5 (batch) — roughly 50x cheaper via API, and free if you self-host.

LFM2.5-2.6B vs Claude Fable 5 (batch) — which should I pick in 2026?

Choose LFM2.5-2.6B if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose Claude Fable 5 (batch) if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.

People also compare

Explore more open-source AI

Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.

Open the leaderboard →