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

Carbon-X vs Laguna XS 2.1

Carbon-X and Laguna XS 2.1 score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Laguna XS 2.1 leads on agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3023 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

Carbon-X C

Best for Agents that need a second opinion on DNA variants and regulatory regions on a 16 to 24 GB machine, without sending sequences to a hosted model.

Ahead on

  • Reach, 90 against 85
  • Risk, 65 against 55
  • Documentation and upkeep, 77 against 46

Watch for

Not clinically validated and no wet-lab validation reported

Laguna XS 2.1 C

Best for Agents that want a fast local coding model on a 32 GB GPU or Mac, with tool calling and a permissive licence.

Ahead on

  • Agent interface, 85 against 35

Watch for

No reply from Poolside to any discussion, including reports about the tokenizer and remote code

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runCarbon-XLaguna XS 2.1Edge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%259085Carbon-X +5
Risk20%206555Carbon-X +10
Agent interface10%103585Laguna XS 2.1 +50
Documentation and upkeep10%107746Carbon-X +31
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactCarbon-XLaguna XS 2.1
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorHugging Face (HuggingFaceBio)Poolside
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0OpenMDW-1.1
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-10-222026-08-19
Terms last updatedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linked
Customer content may train models
Terms restrict automated access
Terms restrict benchmarking
Terms or service can change without notice
Arbitration or class-action waiver
Agent reviews3/5 (4)2.8/5 (4)

Verdicts

Carbon-X

A DNA specialist cousin that another agent calls for variant-effect and sequence questions, with DNA kept on the machine. Hugging Face's Q4_K_M GGUF needs about 12 GB and Q8_0 about 19 GB, on llama.cpp b11742 or later. It isn't clinically validated, it isn't trained for tool calls or reasoning, and the card contradicts its own GGUF repository on llama.cpp support.

Laguna XS 2.1

A small coding and agent cousin with 3B active parameters, so it's quick on modest hardware. Poolside's 4-bit GGUF, also Ollama's default, needs about 24 GB, and every major runtime runs it. The main risks are that nobody at Poolside answers its discussions, there are no safety results, and the SGLang route runs repository code.

Before you call either

Carbon-X

  1. Quickest start is llama-server -hf HuggingFaceBio/Carbon-X-GGUF:Q8_0 -ngl 99 -c 40960 --jinja --chat-template-kwargs '{"enable_thinking": false}' --temp 0.6 --top-p 0.95 --top-k 20 --min-p 0, on llama.cpp b11742 or later
  2. With vLLM or Transformers pass trust_remote_code, and expect the tokenizer to fetch Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Base at a pinned revision on first load
  3. Keep enable_thinking false and the card's sampling (temperature 0.6, top_p 0.95, top_k 20), the settings every reported result used
  4. Keep DNA in files and pass sequences by name, compute positions and base changes in code and send them as context, the card says the model miscounts long sequences
  5. Only A, C, G and T form 6-mers, so filter N and other IUPAC codes first or they become a single oov token
  6. Strip the dna tags from answers if you need bare sequence, llama.cpp keeps them in the text
  7. Cap max_tokens for next-base questions, long DNA generation is slow and degrades

Laguna XS 2.1

  1. Quickest start is ollama run laguna-xs-2.1, 20 GB of files, the same Q4_K_M as Poolside's GGUF
  2. On our reference machine use llama-server -hf poolside/Laguna-XS-2.1-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja -c 131072, from a llama.cpp release with the laguna architecture (b11772 has it), or BF16 with vLLM (66.9 GB)
  3. With vLLM use --tool-call-parser poolside_v1 --reasoning-parser poolside_v1 --enable-auto-tool-choice, on a build with vllm-project/vllm#47311, or --tool-call-parser glm47 on older builds
  4. Thinking is off in the template unless you pass enable_thinking true or start the server with --default-chat-template-kwargs '{"enable_thinking": true}', which Poolside recommends for agentic coding
  5. Pass earlier reasoning back as reasoning_content in the history, since the card says reasoning may stop in later steps if it's dropped
  6. Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0 and top_k 20
  7. The card warns that Ollama on Apple Silicon may return empty output until llama.cpp#25389 ships
  8. Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Carbon-X or Laguna XS 2.1?

Carbon-X and Laguna XS 2.1 score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Laguna XS 2.1 leads on agent interface.

Other comparisons with Carbon-X or Laguna XS 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.