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

BigBang-v1 vs LFM3-Omni-2B

LFM3-Omni-2B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against BigBang-v1's 56.3 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. BigBang-v1 leads on risk. 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

BigBang-v1 C

Best for Agents with 96 GB or more that want an Apache 2.0 mixture-of-experts model tuned for research, search and coding, and can do without publisher support.

Ahead on

  • Risk, 55 against 40

Watch for

BF16 is the only build from the publisher, needing about 86 GB

LFM3-Omni-2B C

Best for Voice and camera agents on a laptop or phone that want one small model for hearing, seeing, speaking and calling tools

Ahead on

  • Reach, 80 against 60
  • Agent interface, 70 against 60

Watch for

Only llama.cpp and Ollama run it in a release

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 LFM3-Omni-2B +20

BigBang-v1 60

Memory 10 of 30, the only build from the publisher is BF16 at 71.9 GB, 86.3 GB with a fifth added, which fits the reference machine but not 64 GB. Runtimes 25, it keeps the base's qwen3_5_moe architecture, which llama.cpp, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers run in released versions, and Ollama 0.40.14 runs through the llama.cpp build it pins. Builds 0, no quantised build from the publisher. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 like its base. Download 10, not gated. Hosted 0, one inference provider, Featherless AI, where the line needs two. 10 + 25 + 0 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 60.

LFM3-Omni-2B 80

Memory 30, Liquid's Q4_K_M GGUF is 1.10 GB with its 0.29 GB projector file, and 1.39 GB × 1.2 = 1.7 GB, which fits 8 GB, well inside the 16 GB line. Runtimes 10, Released llama.cpp has the lfm3 architecture with the LFM3 vision and audio projectors and speech output (src/models/lfm3.cpp and tools/mtmd at b12242, with a realtime client example), and Ollama's library has an lfm3-omni entry. Builds 15, Liquid's GGUF repository holds Q4_0, Q4_K_M, Q8_0, F16 and BF16 files, and Liquid publishes 4-bit and 8-bit MLX builds and an ONNX repository, all in the LiquidAI organisation. Terms 10, the LFM Open License v1.0, a custom licence that lets anyone use it commercially for free below a threshold of $10M annual revenue. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its GGUF, MLX and ONNX repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 5, Liquid's own API lists lfm3-omni-2b among its models, so the publisher hosts it. 30 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 80.

Risk BigBang-v1 +15

BigBang-v1 55

File safety 25, safetensors only and nothing from the repository runs. Provenance 15, the files are in the publisher's own organisation with a SHA-256 for every weight file. Safety evaluation 0. Agent guidance 0. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0 that hasn't changed. Security programme 0, no website or security contact. 25 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 55.

LFM3-Omni-2B 40

File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, files in the LiquidAI organisation, which Liquid's docs page for the model and its blog post link to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card or in Liquid's blog post for the LFM3 family, neither of which mentions safety testing. Agent guidance 0, Nothing on prompt injection, an instruction hierarchy, what refusals cover or safeguards to add. Licence risk 10, 15 less 5 for the $10M annual revenue threshold on commercial use. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw found. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 10 + 0 = 40.

Agent interface LFM3-Omni-2B +10

BigBang-v1 60

Chat template 20, the base's template in the repository. Tool-calling format 10 of 25, the card names the qwen3_coder parser and nothing more. Trained tool calling 20, tuned for tool use with several calls a turn. Structured output 0. Reasoning control 0, the card doesn't say how to turn thinking off or budget it. Context 10, 262,144 tokens. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.

LFM3-Omni-2B 70

Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (13,513 characters), with roles, images, video and audio, tools, deferred tools and tool results. Tool-calling format 25, the card and Liquid's tool-use page document tools passed through tools= in apply_chat_template, calls returned as XML and results sent back as tool messages. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over every entry in an assistant turn's tool_calls, so several calls fit in one turn, and the card documents tool calling from spoken or written requests. Structured output 0, the card doesn't mention JSON or structured output for this model. Reasoning control 0, the card says this is a non-reasoning model and that enable_thinking=True is not supported, so there is no thinking to turn off or budget. Context 5, 32K tokens of input and output per the card. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 5 = 70.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runBigBang-v1LFM3-Omni-2BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%256080LFM3-Omni-2B +20
Risk20%205540BigBang-v1 +15
Agent interface10%106070LFM3-Omni-2B +10
Documentation and upkeep10%104649LFM3-Omni-2B +3
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 56.3/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactBigBang-v1LFM3-Omni-2B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorThe Endless Frontier (endless-frontier)Liquid AI
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue)
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnoyes
Last release2026-08-062026-11-03
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviews2.3/5 (4)none

How the scores have moved

BigBang-v1

LFM3-Omni-2B

No score change since it was listed.

Verdicts

BigBang-v1

A Qwen3.6-35B-A3B fine-tuned on synthetic research problems, under plain Apache 2.0, for search, science and coding work. The publisher ships BF16 only, about 86 GB to run, and has no report, safety results or replies to questions, so smaller builds and support come from others.

LFM3-Omni-2B

One 2.17B model that sees, listens and talks on an 8 GB machine and turns spoken requests into tool calls. Only llama.cpp and Ollama run it in a release. The context is 32K, it doesn't reason, Liquid hasn't answered a question on the repository, and there are no safety results or data sources.

Before you call either

BigBang-v1

  1. On the reference machine use vllm serve endless-frontier/BigBang-v1 --max-model-len 131072 --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder
  2. The card says to keep at least 128K of context so its thinking isn't cut short
  3. Thinking control isn't documented, try the base template's enable_thinking false in chat_template_kwargs and check the output
  4. For Ollama or llama.cpp you'll need someone else's GGUF; the publisher ships BF16 safetensors only
  5. Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding

LFM3-Omni-2B

  1. Start it with llama-server -hf LiquidAI/LFM3-Omni-2B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja or ollama run lfm3-omni
  2. Greedy decoding for text. For speech use audio_temperature 0.4 and audio_repetition_penalty 1.2, per the card
  3. The context is 32K, and llama.cpp samples video at 2 frames a second up to 384 frames
  4. Parse tool calls yourself from the XML it returns
  5. It doesn't reason, so don't pass enable_thinking
  6. Validate JSON output yourself

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, BigBang-v1 or LFM3-Omni-2B?

LFM3-Omni-2B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against BigBang-v1's 56.3 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. BigBang-v1 leads on risk.

Other comparisons with BigBang-v1 or LFM3-Omni-2B

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.