Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs LFM3-1.7B
Anthropic · US | Liquid AI · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.5 for agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch or computer use and gui automation (61.4% osworld at launch). Pick LFM3-1.7B for very small open-weight text model - about 1.73b parameters with a 256k-token context for on-device use or liquid says it can power agentic applications that used to need 9b parameters. Choose LFM3-1.7B if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Claude Sonnet 4.5 if you want a managed API.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Anthropic) and LFM3-1.7B (Liquid AI) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is september 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. LFM3-1.7B is liquid AI's October 27, 2026 on-device text model - about 1.73B parameters and 256K context, with open weights under a license capped at $10M annual revenue. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
- ▸Cost model: LFM3-1.7B ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Claude Sonnet 4.5 is API-metered at $3/$15 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
- ▸Context window: LFM3-1.7B holds 1.3× more — 256K tokens (~384 pages) vs 200K (~300 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
- ▸Recency: LFM3-1.7B is the newer model by about 13 months (released October 27, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | LFM3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic (US) | Liquid AI (US) |
| Released | September 29, 2025 | October 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 200K (~300 pages) | 256K tokens (~384 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | $3/$15 per 1M tokens | Open weight (self-host / free) |
| Open weight? | No — API only | Yes — self-hostable |
| Modalities | text, image, code | text |
| SWE-Bench Verified | 77.2% | Not published |
| MRCR v2 @ 1M | Not published | Not published |
Who wins what
Agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch
Claude Sonnet 4.5
LFM3-1.7B is comparatively weak here — liquid says it is not recommended for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning because of its size
Computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch)
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch) among its strengths; LFM3-1.7B does not.
Long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks among its strengths; LFM3-1.7B does not.
Very small open-weight text model - about 1.73B parameters with a 256K-token context for on-device use
LFM3-1.7B
Its 256K tokens window holds about 1.3× more than Claude Sonnet 4.5's 200K in a single prompt.
Liquid says it can power agentic applications that used to need 9B parameters
LFM3-1.7B
Liquid AI's October 27, 2026 on-device text model - about 1.73B parameters and 256K context, with open weights under a license capped at $10M annual revenue — and it carries the larger 256K tokens context.
Part of a six-model LFM3 family covering text, vision, audio, omni and decision tasks
LFM3-1.7B
Liquid AI's October 27, 2026 on-device text model - about 1.73B parameters and 256K context, with open weights under a license capped at $10M annual revenue — and its weights are open while Claude Sonnet 4.5 is API-only.
Lowest cost at scale
LFM3-1.7B
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Claude Sonnet 4.5's $3/$15 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
LFM3-1.7B
Its 256K tokens window is about 1.3× larger than Claude Sonnet 4.5's 200K, fitting roughly 384 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ LFM3-1.7B
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Claude Sonnet 4.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ LFM3-1.7B
Larger 256K tokens window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ LFM3-1.7B
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Claude Sonnet 4.5 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch
→ Claude Sonnet 4.5
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is very small open-weight text model - about 1.73b parameters with a 256k-token context for on-device use
→ LFM3-1.7B
That is its strongest area.
Claude Sonnet 4.5: where it fits
September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Released September 29, 2025 by Anthropic, it is built for agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch), long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks, and tracking its own remaining token budget natively, which few models do.
Its trade-offs are real: superseded twice — Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5 match or beat it at the same or lower price, capped at 200K since Anthropic retired its 1M beta in April 2026, while its successors ship 1M as standard, and missing the modern API surface: no adaptive thinking, no effort control, and half the max output of newer Sonnets. At $3 in / $15 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
LFM3-1.7B: where it fits
Liquid AI's October 27, 2026 on-device text model - about 1.73B parameters and 256K context, with open weights under a license capped at $10M annual revenue. Released October 27, 2026 by Liquid AI, it is built for very small open-weight text model - about 1.73B parameters with a 256K-token context for on-device use, liquid says it can power agentic applications that used to need 9B parameters, part of a six-model LFM3 family covering text, vision, audio, omni and decision tasks, and supports 16 languages.
Its trade-offs: lFM Open License v1.0 covers commercial use only below $10M annual revenue; larger firms need a paid license, liquid says it is not recommended for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning because of its size, text-only; vision and audio need other LFM3 checkpoints, and no published per-token API price found. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. LFM3-1.7B gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Claude Sonnet 4.5 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Claude Sonnet 4.5 and LFM3-1.7B without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 or LFM3-1.7B better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for LFM3-1.7B, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leans toward agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch while LFM3-1.7B leans toward very small open-weight text model - about 1.73b parameters with a 256k-token context for on-device use, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or LFM3-1.7B?
LFM3-1.7B is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Claude Sonnet 4.5 is API-metered at $3/$15 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
LFM3-1.7B — 256K tokens vs 200K, about 1.3× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Claude Sonnet 4.5 and LFM3-1.7B together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Sonnet 4.5, LFM3-1.7B and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or LFM3-1.7B?
LFM3-1.7B — released October 27, 2026, about 13 months after Claude Sonnet 4.5.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.