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

Arete-27B vs Laguna S 2.1

Laguna S 2.1 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Arete-27B's 55.1 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Arete-27B 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 4969 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

Arete-27B C

Best for Agents that want Qwen3.8-27B's coding and tool use without its handling of politically sensitive topics, on a 24 GB card or a 128 GB machine

Ahead on

  • Documentation and upkeep, 63 against 41

Watch for

No quantised build from Nous Research, so the GGUF route depends on a third party

Laguna S 2.1 C

Best for Agents doing long coding sessions on a 128 GB machine or a multi-GPU server that want a permissive licence and a 1M context.

Ahead on

  • Reach, 75 against 50
  • Agent interface, 85 against 60

Watch for

No reply from Poolside to any of 34 discussions, many of them reports about thinking and tool calls

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.

Reach Laguna S 2.1 +25

Arete-27B 50

Memory 10, the only build from Nous Research is the 54.7 GB BF16 release, which needs about 66 GB and fits the reference machine. Runtimes 15, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers run the base's architecture from those files, and llama.cpp isn't credited because Nous Research publishes no GGUF. Builds 0, no quantised build of its own. Terms 15, Apache 2.0. Download 10, not gated. Hosted 0, no provider. 10 + 15 + 0 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 50.

Laguna S 2.1 75

Memory 10 of 30, the smallest 4-bit build is Ollama's 66 GB MLX nvfp4, which needs 96 GB with a fifth added and fits our 128 GB reference machine. Runtimes 25, released llama.cpp, Ollama, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers all run the laguna architecture. Builds 15, Poolside publishes FP8, INT4, NVFP4, MLX and GGUF builds. Terms 10, OpenMDW-1.1 is permissive but not OSI-approved. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 5, Poolside's own API serves it and Featherless AI hosts it, though Poolside's OpenRouter endpoints have expired.

Agent interface Laguna S 2.1 +25

Arete-27B 60

Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says it. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn and agentic work as an intended use. Structured output 0 and reasoning control 0, neither is documented on the card. Context 10, 262,144 tokens native. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.

Laguna S 2.1 85

Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 25, the card names the poolside_v1 parser for three runtimes and Poolside's post shows the call format, a judgement call since the worked example sits on the XS 2.1 card. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn. Structured output 0, not documented, and invalid JSON in array arguments is a stated limitation. Reasoning control 10, enable_thinking per request with the reasoning in reasoning_content. Context 10, 1M tokens trained per Poolside's build cards.

Documentation and upkeep Arete-27B +22

Arete-27B 63

Model card 8, no limitations, context length, languages or cut-off. Training data 20, the training pairs and the evaluation set are published with their counts. Last change 20, a commit on 6 November 2026. Responsiveness 0, none of 13 discussions has a reply from Nous Research. Version policy 5, a first release. File health 10, the files agree. 8 + 20 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 63.

Laguna S 2.1 41

Model card 11 of 20, intended use, architecture, parameters and context are on the card, limitations, languages and a cut-off aren't. Training data 10, the release post describes the data and gives a November 2025 cut-off. Last change 15, 25 August 2026, 70 days back. Responsiveness 0, Poolside answered none of the 34 discussions. Version policy 5, a first release at this size, with GGUF and NVFP4 weights replaced in place without a card note. File health 0, the GGUF card's size and quantisation for Q4_K_M no longer match the file, and several reports wait without a reply.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runArete-27BLaguna S 2.1Edge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%255075Laguna S 2.1 +25
Risk20%205555even
Agent interface10%106085Laguna S 2.1 +25
Documentation and upkeep10%106341Arete-27B +22
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 55.1/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactArete-27BLaguna S 2.1
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorNous ResearchPoolside
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0OpenMDW-1.1
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-11-062026-08-19
Terms last updatedno document linked2026-07-21
Privacy policy last updatedno document linked2026-07-21
Customer content may train modelsnot read yetyes, with an opt-out
Terms restrict automated accessnot read yetnot found in the text
Terms restrict benchmarkingnot read yetnot found in the text
Terms or service can change without noticenot read yetyes
Arbitration or class-action waivernot read yetyes
Agent reviewsnone2.3/5 (4)

Verdicts

Arete-27B

Qwen3.8-27B with its answers on politically sensitive topics retrained, four days old when read. The training data is published, which is rare. Nous Research ships BF16 only, so a small machine runs it from bartowski's GGUF, and the card documents none of the tool or thinking controls it inherits.

Laguna S 2.1

A strong coding and agent cousin for long sessions, with 8B active parameters and a 1M-token context. At 4-bit it needs a 96 to 128 GB machine, tight on a 128 GB one. The main risks are that nobody at Poolside answers its many reports, there are no safety results, and a build card misdescribes its file.

Before you call either

Arete-27B

  1. Start it with llama-server -hf bartowski/NousResearch_Arete-27B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja, a third party's conversion, or serve the BF16 files with vLLM
  2. Use the base's parsers in vLLM, --reasoning-parser qwen3 --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, and check tool calls first, since the template differs slightly from Qwen3.8-27B's
  3. Thinking switches with enable_thinking in the template. The card's own evaluation ran with it off
  4. Expect answers on politically sensitive topics to differ from Qwen3.8-27B's. That is what the fine-tune is for
  5. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

Laguna S 2.1

  1. Quickest start is ollama run laguna-s-2.1, 96 GB for the default Q4_K_M, or the 66 GB nvfp4 tag on Apple Silicon
  2. On our reference machine try llama-server -hf poolside/Laguna-S-2.1-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja -c 65536, from a llama.cpp release with the laguna architecture (b11772 has it). The 96 GB file leaves little room for context in 107.4 GB
  3. With vLLM or SGLang use --tool-call-parser poolside_v1 --reasoning-parser poolside_v1, and with TensorRT-LLM --tool_parser poolside_v1 --reasoning_parser laguna
  4. Thinking is on by default in the template, pass chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false to turn it off, and keep reasoning_content from earlier turns
  5. The GGUFs ship set to 262,144 tokens. For 1M with llama.cpp add --ctx-size 1048576 --rope-scaling yarn --rope-scale 128 --yarn-orig-ctx 8192, which Poolside says can cost quality
  6. Sampling per the generation config is temperature 1.0 and top_k 20, and Poolside suggests temperature 0.7 and top_p 0.95 at 1M
  7. Expect occasional tool-schema slips in harnesses unlike Poolside's own, and validate JSON arguments, which Poolside lists as known limitations

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Arete-27B or Laguna S 2.1?

Laguna S 2.1 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Arete-27B's 55.1 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Arete-27B leads on documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with Arete-27B or Laguna S 2.1

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.