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

Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B scores 64.2 (B) on agent readiness against Carbon-X's 61 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Carbon-X leads on reach and documentation and upkeep. 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
  • Documentation and upkeep, 77 against 70

Watch for

Not clinically validated and no wet-lab validation reported

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B B

Best for Agents on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac that want a fast tool-calling reasoning model with long context and a permissive licence

Ahead on

  • Risk, 75 against 65
  • Agent interface, 90 against 35

Watch for

No safety evaluation results published

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runCarbon-XNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%259085Carbon-X +5
Risk20%206575Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B +10
Agent interface10%103590Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B +55
Documentation and upkeep10%107770Carbon-X +7
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100B 64.2/100

Facts side by side

FactCarbon-XNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorHugging Face (HuggingFaceBio)NVIDIA
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0OpenMDW-1.1
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-10-222026-08-11
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno 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)3/5 (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.

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B

A small agent cousin, 3B active parameters, with trained parallel tool calls, a thinking switch and up to 1M tokens of context, under a permissive licence. It runs in about 23 GB from the GGUF or Ollama builds, and NVIDIA's NVFP4 build needs NVIDIA GPUs. The main risks are no published safety results and one answered question across two repositories.

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

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B

  1. Quickest start is ollama run nemotron-3.5-lightning, about 19 to 25 GB of files depending on the platform
  2. On the reference machine use llama-server -hf ggml-org/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3.5-Lightning-30B-A3B-GGUF:Q4_0 --jinja, since the card's Q4_K_M tag doesn't exist there and NVFP4 needs NVIDIA GPUs
  3. With vLLM serve it with --reasoning-parser nemotron_v3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder (SGLang uses --reasoning-parser nemotron_3)
  4. Use temperature=1.0 and top_p=0.95, as the card says
  5. Thinking is on by default. Pass chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks
  6. For coding agents pass force_nonempty_content: true in chat_template_kwargs, which vLLM's nemotron_v3 parser reads so a cut-off reasoning trace still returns content
  7. Go past 262,144 tokens only with the card's flags (VLLM_ALLOW_LONG_MAX_MODEL_LEN=1, --max-model-len 1048576) and enough memory

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Carbon-X or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B scores 64.2 (B) on agent readiness against Carbon-X's 61 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Carbon-X leads on reach and documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with Carbon-X or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B

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.