Sign in

Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

Apodex-1.1-mini vs Nanbeige4.2-3B

Apodex-1.1-mini and Nanbeige4.2-3B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Nanbeige4.2-3B leads on documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 6359 open weights comparisons

Apodex-1.1-miniApodex AI · Open-weight model C61/100#41 of 160 open-weight models Nanbeige4.2-3BNanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin) · Open-weight model C61/100#78 of 160 open-weight models

Which one, for what

Apodex-1.1-mini C

Best for Long-running agent tasks with tools on a 32 GB GPU or Mac, or through Apodex's API, under a plain licence

Ahead on

  • Risk, 65 against 55

Watch for

No safety results, and agent guidance only from the harness

Nanbeige4.2-3B C

Best for Local agents that need tool calling and a long context on a laptop or a small GPU

Ahead on

  • Documentation and upkeep, 72 against 38

Watch for

Its own architecture: Transformers loads it only with the repository's code

Why the edge

Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.

Documentation and upkeep Nanbeige4.2-3B +34

Apodex-1.1-mini 38

Model card 8, it covers intended use, context and languages but not the architecture, parameters, limitations or a knowledge cut-off. Training data 5, a general description with no cut-off. Last change 15, the GGUF build went up on 10 September 2026, 54 days before 3 November. Responsiveness 0, Apodex answered none of the four discussions, unchanged on 3 November 2026. Version policy 5, 1.0-mini stays in its own repository without a note. File health 5, the files agree, but the card's agent example is broken and reports wait without a reply.

Nanbeige4.2-3B 72

Model card 17, Intended use, limitations, the architecture, the parameters (3B outside the embeddings), the context and the languages (in the metadata) are on the card. Training data 5, A general description of how the fine-tuning and reinforcement learning data was built and filtered, with no sources, sizes or cut-off. Last change 15, the last commit, on 11 September 2026, updated modeling_nanbeige.py, 60 days before this check and within 90. Responsiveness 20, Of the 34 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (21 July to 10 September 2026), 20 have a reply from a Nanbeige member, which is most. Version policy 5, Nanbeige's earlier models (Nanbeige4-3B, 4.1-3B) stay in their own repositories, as the Base, FP8, 8-bit and DSpark builds of this one do. File health 10, Config, tokenizer config, template and card agree on the architecture and the 262,144 tokens. 17 + 5 + 15 + 20 + 5 + 10 = 72.

Risk Apodex-1.1-mini +10

Apodex-1.1-mini 65

File safety 25, safetensors and GGUF only and nothing from the repositories runs. Provenance 15, the files are in the apodex organisation its site links to, with a SHA-256 for every weight file and a SHA256SUMS file for the GGUF. Safety evaluation 0, none published. Agent guidance 5, the recommended harness documents approval gates and a sandbox boundary, but nothing on prompt injection or refusals for the model. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 from Qwen3.5-35B-A3B through to this model with no conditions added. Security programme 5, the harness has a disclosure policy with a private address, with no route shown for the weights.

Nanbeige4.2-3B 55

File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the Nanbeige organisation (Nanbeige LLM Lab), which the lab's arXiv report for this model links, so the publisher's own account, although the Hub hasn't verified it (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 5, General cautions: the limitations section says outputs may be inaccurate, biased or harmful. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, no threshold and no clause letting the licensor change or revoke it. Security programme 5, BOSS Zhipin runs a security response centre for reporting flaws in its products, as read for the Nanbeige4.3-33B listing (5), though nothing links it to the model. 15 + 15 + 0 + 5 + 15 + 5 = 55.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runApodex-1.1-miniNanbeige4.2-3BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258585even
Risk20%206555Apodex-1.1-mini +10
Agent interface10%108585even
Documentation and upkeep10%103872Nanbeige4.2-3B +34
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactApodex-1.1-miniNanbeige4.2-3B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorApodex AINanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0 (Hub metadata only; the repository has no LICENSE file)
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-08-252026-09-11
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviews3.3/5 (4)none

Verdicts

Apodex-1.1-mini

An agent cousin fine-tuned from Qwen3.5-35B-A3B for long tasks with files, code and tools, with parallel tool calling and about 3B active parameters. It needs 32 GB for Apodex's GGUF, NVFP4 or GPTQ-Int4 builds or about 86 GB in BF16, and Apodex's API serves it too. The main risks are no safety results and no replies from the publisher.

Nanbeige4.2-3B

A small model built for agent work, with tool calling it was trained for, a thinking switch and a 256K context in about 5 GB, under Apache 2.0, from a lab that answers most questions. Its architecture is its own, so check your runtime: SGLang and llama.cpp have it, Transformers needs the repository's code, and Nanbeige ships no GGUF.

Before you call either

Apodex-1.1-mini

  1. Serve it with vllm serve apodex/Apodex-1.1-mini --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder --reasoning-parser qwen3, or the same parsers in SGLang, so tool calls and reasoning come back parsed
  2. For llama.cpp, llama-server -hf apodex/Apodex-1.1-mini-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja --reasoning-format deepseek, and the card passes the repository's chat_template.jinja with --chat-template-file
  3. Pass tools through the API's tools parameter rather than in the system prompt, as the card asks
  4. The card recommends temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95, repetition_penalty 1.05 and max_tokens up to 32,768
  5. Send your own system prompt, or set identity_mode, since the template otherwise adds an Apodex identity block
  6. The template keeps all earlier reasoning in the context unless preserve_thinking is false, which grows long agent sessions
  7. Thinking is on by default, send chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention
  8. The card's Python example has a broken line where it runs the tool (available_toolsname), so fix it to available_tools[name](**args) before running
  9. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

Nanbeige4.2-3B

  1. Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later and pass --tool-call-parser nanbeige --reasoning-parser nanbeige
  2. Pass tools in the request. The card recommends tool_call_format="xml"
  3. Set preserve_thinking true for multi-turn tool use and coding, false for plain chat
  4. Use temperature 1.0 for agent and tool work and 0.6 for reasoning and chat, per the card
  5. For llama.cpp use b12242 or later. The GGUF files on the Hub are bartowski's, not Nanbeige's
  6. If you load it with Transformers, read modeling_nanbeige.py first: trust_remote_code runs it

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Apodex-1.1-mini or Nanbeige4.2-3B?

Apodex-1.1-mini and Nanbeige4.2-3B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Nanbeige4.2-3B leads on documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with Apodex-1.1-mini or Nanbeige4.2-3B

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.

Get an auditSee a sample report