Fugu Ultra v2.0 vs LFM3-1.7B

Sakana AI · Global  |  Liquid AI · US · Updated June 2026

Quick verdict

Pick Fugu Ultra v2.0 for sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the deepswe coding-repair benchmark or claims to outperform flagship models like gpt-6 astra and claude fable 5.1 despite its underlying orchestration pool reportedly excluding both of them. 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; Fugu Ultra v2.0 if you want a managed API.

Fugu Ultra v2.0 (Sakana AI) and LFM3-1.7B (Liquid AI) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Fugu Ultra v2.0 is sakana AI's flagship multi-agent orchestration model, claiming best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 self-reported benchmarks against monolithic frontier models — $5/$30 per million tokens. 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

Side-by-side specs

SpecFugu Ultra v2.0LFM3-1.7B
ProviderSakana AI (Global) Liquid AI (US)
ReleasedSeptember 10, 2026 October 27, 2026
Context window1M tokens (~1,500 pages) 256K tokens (~384 pages)
Price (in/out)$5/$30 per 1M tokens Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?No — API only Yes — self-hostable
Modalitiestext text
SWE-Bench VerifiedNot published Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1MNot published Not published

Who wins what

Sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the DeepSWE coding-repair benchmark

Fugu Ultra v2.0

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

Claims to outperform flagship models like GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 despite its underlying orchestration pool reportedly excluding both of them

Fugu Ultra v2.0

Sakana AI's flagship multi-agent orchestration model, claiming best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 self-reported benchmarks against monolithic frontier models — $5/$30 per million tokens — and it carries the larger 1M tokens context.

1M-token context window

Fugu Ultra v2.0

Its 1M tokens window holds about 3.9× more than LFM3-1.7B's 256K tokens in a single prompt.

Very small open-weight text model - about 1.73B parameters with a 256K-token context for on-device use

LFM3-1.7B

Open weights make this possible at all — Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.

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 its weights are open while Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-only.

Part of a six-model LFM3 family covering text, vision, audio, omni and decision tasks

LFM3-1.7B

Fugu Ultra v2.0 is comparatively weak here — not a single trained model — Sakana describes Fugu as "a Multi-Agent System, Delivered as One Model" that dynamically routes tasks across a pool of other models, so head-to-head benchmark framing against monolithic frontier models should be read skeptically

Lowest cost at scale

LFM3-1.7B

Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Fugu Ultra v2.0's $5/$30 per 1M tokens.

Largest single-prompt input

Fugu Ultra v2.0

Its 1M tokens window is about 3.9× larger than LFM3-1.7B's 256K tokens, fitting roughly 1,500 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 Fugu Ultra v2.0, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.

Someone analysing very long documents or codebases

→ Fugu Ultra v2.0

Larger 1M 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; Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-only.

Anyone whose priority is sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the deepswe coding-repair benchmark

→ Fugu Ultra v2.0

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.

Fugu Ultra v2.0: where it fits

Sakana AI's flagship multi-agent orchestration model, claiming best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 self-reported benchmarks against monolithic frontier models — $5/$30 per million tokens. Released September 10, 2026 by Sakana AI, it is built for sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the DeepSWE coding-repair benchmark, claims to outperform flagship models like GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 despite its underlying orchestration pool reportedly excluding both of them, and 1M-token context window.

Its trade-offs are real: not a single trained model — Sakana describes Fugu as "a Multi-Agent System, Delivered as One Model" that dynamically routes tasks across a pool of other models, so head-to-head benchmark framing against monolithic frontier models should be read skeptically, pricing rises to roughly $10/$45 per million tokens for prompts above 272K tokens, and benchmark comparisons against GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 are Sakana's own self-reported figures, not independently verified head-to-head scores. At $5 in / $30 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium 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. Fugu Ultra v2.0 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 Fugu Ultra v2.0 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 pricing

Frequently asked questions

Is Fugu Ultra v2.0 or LFM3-1.7B better for coding?

Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Fugu Ultra v2.0 leans toward sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the deepswe coding-repair benchmark 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, Fugu Ultra v2.0 or LFM3-1.7B?

LFM3-1.7B is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-metered at $5/$30 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?

Fugu Ultra v2.0 — 1M tokens vs 256K tokens, about 3.9× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.

Can I use both Fugu Ultra v2.0 and LFM3-1.7B together?

Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Fugu Ultra v2.0, 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, Fugu Ultra v2.0 or LFM3-1.7B?

LFM3-1.7B — released October 27, 2026, about 47 days after Fugu Ultra v2.0.

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.