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

GLM-5.3 vs Laguna S 2.1

GLM-5.3 scores 64.6 (B) on agent readiness against Laguna S 2.1's 61 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Laguna S 2.1 leads on reach, risk and agent interface. 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

GLM-5.3 B

Best for Teams with an 8-GPU server who want an open coding and long-horizon agent model with a 1M-token context, or agents that call it through Z.ai or a hosted provider

Ahead on

  • Documentation and upkeep, 58 against 41

Also in its favour

  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 2.8 against 2.3 out of 5

Watch for

Z.ai's smallest build is 755.6 GB in FP8, with no local Ollama or LM Studio build

Laguna S 2.1 C

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 55
  • Risk, 55 against 50
  • Agent interface, 85 against 70

Watch for

No reply from Poolside to any of 34 discussions, many of them reports about thinking and tool calls

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runGLM-5.3Laguna S 2.1Edge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%255575Laguna S 2.1 +20
Risk20%205055Laguna S 2.1 +5
Agent interface10%107085Laguna S 2.1 +15
Documentation and upkeep10%105841GLM-5.3 +17
Negative events≤1500
TotalB 64.6/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactGLM-5.3Laguna S 2.1
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorZ.ai (Zhipu AI)Poolside
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceGLM-5.3 License (MIT-style, with a security review for the largest model-as-a-service operators)OpenMDW-1.1
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-10-142026-08-19
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 reviews2.8/5 (4)2.3/5 (4)

Verdicts

GLM-5.3

A large coding and long-horizon agent model with a 1M-token context, several tool calls per turn and three reasoning budgets. Z.ai's smallest build is 756 GB in FP8, so it needs an 8-GPU server, Z.ai's API or a provider. The main risks are no published safety work, no way to report a flaw, and thinking that can't be turned off.

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

GLM-5.3

  1. Start it with vllm serve zai-org/GLM-5.3 --kv-cache-dtype fp8 --tensor-parallel-size 8 --speculative-config.method mtp --speculative-config.num_speculative_tokens 5 --tool-call-parser glm47 --reasoning-parser glm47 --enable-auto-tool-choice --served-model-name glm-5.3 (vLLM 0.28.0 or later, 8xH200 or 8xH20 per vLLM's recipe)
  2. Use the glm47 tool-call and reasoning parsers in vLLM or SGLang; SGLang's cookbook says glm45 leaves the calls as plain text
  3. Pass chat_template_kwargs: {"reasoning_effort": "low"} for short tasks; anything other than low or high falls back to max
  4. Pass clear_thinking: true in chat use, since the template keeps earlier reasoning by default
  5. Don't send enable_thinking: false; the template ignores it and always opens a think block
  6. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output is documented only for Z.ai's hosted API
  7. No Z.ai build fits a 128 GB machine; the full 1M context needs 8xB200 per vLLM's recipe

Laguna S 2.1

  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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Thinking is on by default in the template, pass chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false to turn it off, and keep reasoning_content from earlier turns
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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, GLM-5.3 or Laguna S 2.1?

GLM-5.3 scores 64.6 (B) on agent readiness against Laguna S 2.1's 61 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Laguna S 2.1 leads on reach, risk and agent interface.

Other comparisons with GLM-5.3 or Laguna S 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.