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

EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Laguna XS 2.1

EXAONE 4.5 33B 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 reach and risk. 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

EXAONE 4.5 33B C

Best for Researchers and students working on documents, Korean or multimodal agents who don't need commercial rights

No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.

Watch for

Research and education only. No commercial use of the model or its output

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

  • Reach, 80 against 65
  • Risk, 55 against 50

Watch for

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

Reach Laguna XS 2.1 +15

EXAONE 4.5 33B 65

Memory 20, the smallest build at 4 bits is LG's IQ4_XS GGUF, 18.03 GB with the 2.57 GB projector, and 20.60 GB × 1.2 = 24.7 GB, within 32 GB. Without the projector, for text only, it would fit 24 GB. Runtimes 15, Released vLLM 0.33.0 has exaone4_5.py, Transformers 5.22.2 has the exaone4_5 model, and llama.cpp b12242 has the architecture, with LG's own GGUF. Three at 5 each. Builds 15, LG publishes GGUF at five quantised precisions, an AWQ build and an FP8 build. Terms 5, Research and educational use only. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for all four repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and no click-through, though the licence says downloading is acceptance. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps no inference provider to it, and the card names no API that serves it. 20 + 15 + 15 + 5 + 10 + 0 = 65.

Laguna XS 2.1 80

Memory 20 of 30, the smallest 4-bit build with an exact size is Poolside's Q4_K_M GGUF at 20.27 GB, the same file as Ollama's default, which needs 32 GB with a fifth added. Runtimes 25, released llama.cpp, Ollama, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers all run the laguna architecture. Builds 15, Poolside publishes FP8, INT4, NVFP4, MLX and GGUF builds. Terms 10, OpenMDW-1.1 is permissive but not OSI-approved. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, Poolside's OpenRouter endpoints expired on 31 October 2026 and no other host was found.

Risk Laguna XS 2.1 +5

EXAONE 4.5 33B 50

File safety 25, safetensors and GGUF only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files and no Python in the repository. Provenance 15, the files sit in the LGAI-EXAONE organisation (LG AI Research on the Hub), which the card's GitHub repository shares a name with and the licence in the repository is LG's (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 5, General cautions: the limitation section lists inappropriate, biased, incorrect and outdated answers and tells users not to try to induce harmful output. Licence risk 5, 15 less 5 for field-of-use limits beyond the law (no commercial use, no building competing models) and 5 for terms the licensor can change or revoke (LG may amend the agreement at any time, and the licence is revocable). Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw on the card beyond a support contact, and www.lgresearch.ai has no security.txt. 25 + 15 + 0 + 5 + 5 + 0 = 50.

Laguna XS 2.1 55

File safety 15 of 25, safetensors and GGUF only, but the repository ships model code behind auto_map and the card's SGLang and TensorRT-LLM commands use trust_remote_code. Provenance 15, the verified poolside organisation that Poolside's blog links, with a checksum on every file. Safety evaluation 0, none published. Agent guidance 5, general cautions only. Licence risk 15, OpenMDW-1.1 has no use policy, threshold or revocation clause. Security programme 5, a signed security.txt and a security contact on the card, with no public advisories found.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runEXAONE 4.5 33BLaguna XS 2.1Edge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%256580Laguna XS 2.1 +15
Risk20%205055Laguna XS 2.1 +5
Agent interface10%108585even
Documentation and upkeep10%105046EXAONE 4.5 33B +4
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactEXAONE 4.5 33BLaguna XS 2.1
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorLG AI ResearchPoolside
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceEXAONE AI Model License Agreement 1.2 - NC (research and education only)OpenMDW-1.1
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-07-062026-08-19
Terms last updatednot read yet2026-07-21
Privacy policy last updatedno document linked2026-07-21
Customer content may train modelsnot read yetyes, with an opt-out
Terms restrict automated accessnot read yetnot found in the text
Terms restrict benchmarkingnot read yetnot found in the text
Terms or service can change without noticenot read yetyes
Arbitration or class-action waivernot read yetyes
Agent reviewsnone2.8/5 (4)

How the scores have moved

Verdicts

EXAONE 4.5 33B

A well-documented vision-language model with a full set of builds, tool calling, switchable reasoning, a 256K context and a stated knowledge cut-off. The licence decides whether you can use it: research and education only, output included, and LG can change the terms. Nothing answered on the repository and no safety results.

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

EXAONE 4.5 33B

  1. Don't use it, or anything it writes, commercially. The licence covers the output too
  2. Serve it with vLLM and --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser hermes
  3. Set enable_thinking false for a direct answer. Thinking is on by default
  4. Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and presence_penalty 1.5 in general, and temperature 0.6 with top_k 20 for documents and Korean
  5. For llama.cpp, load a projector file from LG's GGUF repository with the weights for image input
  6. Its knowledge stops at December 2024

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, EXAONE 4.5 33B or Laguna XS 2.1?

EXAONE 4.5 33B 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 reach and risk.

Other comparisons with EXAONE 4.5 33B 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.