Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Carbon-X vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
Carbon-X and Nanbeige4.2-3B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Nanbeige4.2-3B 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 6359 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
Watch for
Not clinically validated and no wet-lab validation reported
Best for Local agents that need tool calling and a long context on a laptop or a small GPU
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 85 against 35
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.
Agent interface Nanbeige4.2-3B +50
Carbon-X 35
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10, only the inherited template shows the format and no parser is named. Trained tool calling 0, nothing says it was trained to call tools. Structured output 0, not documented. Reasoning control 0, thinking can be switched off but was never trained, and the card asks you to keep it off. Context 5, 40,960 tokens from the base, though Hugging Face trained at 8,192 and under 16K. Most of what the card documents for agents is Carbon-X as a tool another model calls, which this checklist doesn't read.
Nanbeige4.2-3B 85
Chat template 20, A Jinja chat template in tokenizer_config.json (7,961 characters), with enable_thinking, preserve_thinking, tools and tool_call_format switches. Tool-calling format 25, the card says passing tools switches on the tool template and recommends tool_call_format xml, with json for compatibility, and its SGLang and vLLM commands name the nanbeige tool-call parser, which released SGLang 0.5.23 has. Trained tool calling 20, the card describes fine-tuning on tool-use environments and agent scaffolds and reinforcement learning on agent tasks, and the template tells the model it may call one or more functions and renders every call in a turn. Structured output 0, Neither the card nor the files mention JSON or JSON Schema output, beyond json as a tool-call format. Reasoning control 10, the card documents enable_thinking, on by default and False per request, and preserve_thinking for earlier turns, and names the nanbeige reasoning parser, which returns the reasoning apart from the answer. Context 10, 262,144 tokens, which the card says the model supports and config.json gives as max_position_embeddings. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.
Risk Carbon-X +10
Carbon-X 65
File safety 15, safetensors and GGUF only, but the documented loading path runs the repository's tokenizer.py through trust_remote_code. Provenance 15, the files are in HuggingFaceBio, which Hugging Face's GitHub repository links, with a checksum on every file. Safety evaluation 10, Hugging Face reports its own dual-use check on sequence editing in the launch post, without numbers or a harness. Agent guidance 5, general cautions only. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0. Security programme 5, Hugging Face's security.txt is a reporting route, and public advisories couldn't be checked.
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.
Reach Carbon-X +5
Carbon-X 90
Memory 30, the publisher's Q4_K_M GGUF is 9.6 GB, or 11.6 GB with a fifth added. Runtimes 20, released llama.cpp (from b11742, which added the DNA tokenizer), vLLM, SGLang and Transformers all run it, with no Ollama or LM Studio entry. Builds 15, Hugging Face publishes GGUFs at four precisions. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 on the model and on its Qwen3-14B base. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, no inference provider or Hugging Face API serves it.
Nanbeige4.2-3B 85
Memory 30, the smallest build from Nanbeige is the FP8 repository (the 8-bit GPTQ one is the same size), 5.19 GB, and 5.19 GB × 1.2 = 6.2 GB, within 16 GB. bartowski's GGUF isn't read for this line. Runtimes 15, Released SGLang 0.5.23 has the model (srt/models/nanbeige.py) with its parsers, llama.cpp b12242 has the nanbeige architecture, and vLLM 0.33.0 names NanbeigeForCausalLM in its registry, served through its Transformers backend. Builds 15, Quantised builds from Nanbeige at two precisions, FP8 and 8-bit GPTQ, each in its own repository. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata, an OSI licence, with no use policy or other terms on the card. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its FP8 and 8-bit repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps no inference provider to it, and no Nanbeige or BOSS Zhipin API for it was found. 30 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 85.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Carbon-X | Nanbeige4.2-3B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 85 | Carbon-X +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 65 | 55 | Carbon-X +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 35 | 85 | Nanbeige4.2-3B +50 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 72 | 72 | even |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Carbon-X | Nanbeige4.2-3B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Hugging Face (HuggingFaceBio) | Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 (Hub metadata only; the repository has no LICENSE file) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-28 | 2026-09-11 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 3/5 (4) | none |
How the scores have moved
Nanbeige4.2-3B
No score change since it was listed.
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, isn't trained for tool calls or reasoning, and its Python tokenizer runs repository code.
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
Carbon-X
- 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 - 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
- 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
- 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
- Only A, C, G and T form 6-mers, so filter N and other IUPAC codes first or they become a single oov token
- Strip the dna tags from answers if you need bare sequence, llama.cpp keeps them in the text
- Cap max_tokens for next-base questions, long DNA generation is slow and degrades
Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later and pass
--tool-call-parser nanbeige --reasoning-parser nanbeige - Pass
toolsin the request. The card recommendstool_call_format="xml" - Set
preserve_thinkingtrue for multi-turn tool use and coding, false for plain chat - Use temperature 1.0 for agent and tool work and 0.6 for reasoning and chat, per the card
- For llama.cpp use b12242 or later. The GGUF files on the Hub are bartowski's, not Nanbeige's
- If you load it with Transformers, read modeling_nanbeige.py first: trust_remote_code runs it
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Carbon-X or Nanbeige4.2-3B?
Carbon-X and Nanbeige4.2-3B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Nanbeige4.2-3B leads on agent interface.
Other comparisons with Carbon-X or Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Carbon-X
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Carbon-X
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Carbon-X
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Arete-27B vs Carbon-X
- Arete-27B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- BigBang-v1 vs Carbon-X
- BigBang-v1 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Carbon-X vs Cola2
- Carbon-X vs Cosmos-Reason2-2B
- Carbon-X vs Darwin-36B-Opus
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- Carbon-X vs Devstral Small 2
- Carbon-X vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- Carbon-X vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Carbon-X vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Carbon-X vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Carbon-X vs GLM-5.3
- Carbon-X vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Carbon-X vs gpt-oss-120b
- Carbon-X vs gpt-oss-20b
- Carbon-X vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Carbon-X vs Granite 4.2 3B
- Carbon-X vs Granite 4.2 8B
- Carbon-X vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Carbon-X vs Hy3
- Carbon-X vs Inkling
- Carbon-X vs Inkling-Small
- Carbon-X vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Carbon-X vs Kimi K3
- Carbon-X vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Carbon-X vs Kolibri-1
- Carbon-X vs Kronos
- Carbon-X vs Laguna M.1
- Carbon-X vs Laguna S 2.1
- Carbon-X vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Carbon-X vs LBS-27B
- Carbon-X vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Carbon-X vs LFM3-1.7B
- Carbon-X vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- Carbon-X vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- Carbon-X vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs LongCat-2.5
- Carbon-X vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Carbon-X vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Carbon-X vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Carbon-X vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Carbon-X vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Carbon-X vs Mistral Large 4
- Carbon-X vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Carbon-X vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Carbon-X vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Carbon-X vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Carbon-X vs occamy-1.0
- Carbon-X vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Carbon-X vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- Carbon-X vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Carbon-X vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- Carbon-X vs SmolLM3-3B
- Carbon-X vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Carbon-X vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Carbon-X vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Carbon-X vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Carbon-X vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Carbon-X vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Carbon-X vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Carbon-X vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Carbon-X vs ZAYA1-8B
- Cola2 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Devstral Small 2 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Hy3 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Inkling-Small vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Inkling vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Kimi K3 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Kolibri-1 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Kronos vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Laguna M.1 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LBS-27B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Mistral Large 4 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs occamy-1.0
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/carbon-x-vs-nanbeige-4-2-3b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/carbon-x.json·/api/v1/tools/nanbeige-4-2-3b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare carbon-x nanbeige-4-2-3b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "carbon-x", "b": "nanbeige-4-2-3b"}at/mcp, no key