Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's 59 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 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 2870 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Teams with a multi-GPU server who want DeepSeek's agent model under MIT, with the hosted API as a fallback.
Ahead on
- Documentation and upkeep, 48 against 41
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 2.8 against 2.3 out of 5
Watch for
510.3 GB of files and no smaller build anywhere, so it won't fit the 107.4 GB reference machine
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
- Risk, 55 against 50
- Agent interface, 85 against 75
Watch for
No reply from Poolside to any of 34 discussions, many of them reports about thinking and tool calls
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Laguna S 2.1 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 50 | 75 | Laguna S 2.1 +25 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 55 | Laguna S 2.1 +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 85 | Laguna S 2.1 +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 48 | 41 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash +7 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 59/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Laguna S 2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | DeepSeek | Poolside |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | OpenMDW-1.1 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-17 | 2026-08-19 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | |
| Privacy policy last updated | no 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 reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | 2.3/5 (4) |
Verdicts
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
A large multimodal agent model with a 1M-token context, documented tool calls, JSON Schema output and a reasoning budget, under MIT. It needs about 612 GB of memory across several GPUs in vLLM or SGLang. The main risks are prompts built from DeepSeek's code rather than a template, no published safety results and no answers in its repositories.
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
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- DeepSeek's reference run is its inference folder, convert.py with --model-parallel 8 --expert-dtype fp4, then torchrun --nproc-per-node 8 generate.py --ckpt-path "$SAVE_PATH" --config config.json --interactive
- In vLLM 0.32.0 the parsers are named deepseek_v41 for both --tool-call-parser and --reasoning-parser. That's vLLM's naming, DeepSeek doesn't document a vLLM command
- Build prompts with encoding.py or pip install deepseek-recipe, not the September repository's chat_template.jinja, which an open pull request says trails the 16 October encoding
- Tool calls come back in a DSML calls block with a space before calls, invoke and parameter, unlike V4
- Set reasoning_effort to 1 to 100, or low, high or max (50, 75, 100), in thinking mode only. Default is 75
- Sample at temperature 1.0 and top_p 1.0 and allow 256K or more output tokens, as the card recommends
- Without the hardware, call DeepSeek's API as deepseek-flash, which serves this exact update
Laguna S 2.1
- 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 - 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 - 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 - Thinking is on by default in the template, pass
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse to turn it off, and keepreasoning_contentfrom earlier turns - 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 - 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
- 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, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Laguna S 2.1?
Laguna S 2.1 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's 59 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads on documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Laguna S 2.1
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Laguna S 2.1
- BigBang-v1 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Laguna S 2.1
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Laguna S 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.5-Air
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs gpt-oss-20b
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Granite 4.2 3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Hy3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Inkling
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Inkling-Small
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kimi K3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kolibri-1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna M.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna XS 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs occamy-1.0
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs SmolLM3-3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Laguna S 2.1
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-5.3 vs Laguna S 2.1
- gpt-oss-120b vs Laguna S 2.1
- gpt-oss-20b vs Laguna S 2.1
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Hy3 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Inkling-Small vs Laguna S 2.1
- Inkling vs Laguna S 2.1
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Laguna S 2.1
- Kimi K3 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Kolibri-1 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Laguna M.1 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs occamy-1.0
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Laguna S 2.1 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Laguna S 2.1 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-vs-laguna-s-2-1.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/deepseek-v4-1-flash.json·/api/v1/tools/laguna-s-2-1.json - From a terminal
anchor compare deepseek-v4-1-flash laguna-s-2-1(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "deepseek-v4-1-flash", "b": "laguna-s-2-1"}at/mcp, no key