Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-1.7B
Granite 4.2 30B and LFM3-1.7B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). LFM3-1.7B 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 4969 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Agents that want a documented, signed, Apache 2.0 reasoning model with tool calling on a 24 GB card
Ahead on
- Reach, 90 against 85
- Risk, 55 against 40
- Documentation and upkeep, 87 against 67
Watch for
No safety results published for it
Best for Agents on a laptop, phone or small server that need tool calling and a long context from a model under 2 GB at 4 bits
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 100 against 85
Watch for
vLLM and SGLang have no released support, though the card lists both
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.
Documentation and upkeep Granite 4.2 30B +20
Granite 4.2 30B 87
Model card 17, Intended use (best for), limitations (ethical considerations and limitations), architecture, parameters (30B), context length (128K native) and 12 tested languages are on the card. Training data 20, IBM's disclosure file for the 30B lists the datasets used in pre-training and post-training as machine-readable metadata, and the card describes the three training stages. Last change 15, the last commit to the repository was on 4 September 2026, 67 days before this check. Responsiveness 20, Of the 4 discussions that aren't pull requests (28 August to 3 November 2026), 3 have a reply from an ibm-granite member. Version policy 5, Granite 4.1 30B stays in its own repository and 4.2 came out in new ones. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture, the 131,072-token context and the thinking switch. 17 + 20 + 15 + 20 + 5 + 10 = 87.
LFM3-1.7B 67
Model card 17, Intended use (local agents, tool calling, structured outputs, fine-tuning), a limitation (not recommended for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning), architecture (24 layers: 13 gated short convolutions, 5 sliding-window and 6 global attention), parameters (1.73B), context (256K) and 16 languages. Training data 5, A general description: 22T tokens of pre-training in two stages with the kinds of data added since LFM2, 1.75T tokens of supervised fine-tuning, then mixed reinforcement learning, distillation from six specialist teachers and agentic reinforcement learning. Last change 20, the last commit, on 9 November 2026, added the OpenVINO checkpoint to the card's inference table, a day before this check. Responsiveness 10, Of the 22 discussions that aren't pull requests (27 October to 8 November 2026), 7 have a reply from a LiquidAI member, which is some. Version policy 5, LFM3 came out in new repositories and the LFM2.5 models stay in theirs. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the lfm3 architecture, the 262,144-token context and the thinking switch. 17 + 5 + 20 + 10 + 5 + 10 = 67.
Risk Granite 4.2 30B +15
Granite 4.2 30B 55
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the ibm-granite organisation, which IBM's Granite docs and the GitHub README link to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 5, General cautions. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, field-of-use limit, threshold or change clause, and the card's licence link resolves. Security programme 5, www.ibm.com/.well-known/security.txt names IBM PSIRT, read for the 3B listing on 4 November 2026 (5). 15 + 15 + 0 + 5 + 15 + 5 = 55.
LFM3-1.7B 40
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, files in the LiquidAI organisation, which Liquid's docs page for the model and its blog post link to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card or in Liquid's blog post for the LFM3 family, neither of which mentions safety testing. Agent guidance 0, Nothing on prompt injection, an instruction hierarchy, what refusals cover or safeguards to add. Licence risk 10, 15 less 5 for the $10M annual revenue threshold on commercial use. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw found. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 10 + 0 = 40.
Agent interface LFM3-1.7B +15
Granite 4.2 30B 85
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository, with roles, tools, tool responses, the thinking switch and low effort. Tool-calling format 25, the card has tool-calling sections for vLLM and SGLang, declares tools with OpenAI's function schema and names the parser to use, qwen3_coder, which both runtimes ship in the released versions read. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over every entry in an assistant turn's tool_calls, so it renders several calls in one turn, and the card names tool calling and agentic workflows as what it's best for. Structured output 0, the card doesn't document JSON or JSON Schema output or how to ask for it. Reasoning control 10, the card documents thinking on by default, non-thinking and low-effort modes per request through the template (enable_thinking and low_effort), with the reasoning returned apart from the answer. Context 10, 131,072 tokens natively per the card and config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.
LFM3-1.7B 100
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (12,129 characters), with roles, tools, deferred tools, tool results and the thinking switch. Tool-calling format 25, the card and Liquid's tool-use page document tools passed through tools= in apply_chat_template, calls returned as XML and results sent back as tool messages. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over every entry in an assistant turn's tool_calls, so several calls fit in one turn, and the card says the model was trained on tool calls and agentic traces and with reinforcement learning inside agent harnesses. Structured output 15, Liquid's API guide documents response_format with a JSON Schema, with lfm3-1.7b as the model in its examples, and says the schema is checked before generation starts. Reasoning control 10, the card documents enable_thinking=False in the chat template to turn reasoning off per request, with reasoning on by default inside think tags, and preserve_thinking for earlier turns. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, which says the mid-training stage extended the context window to 256K, and max_position_embeddings 262144 in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 15 + 10 + 10 = 100.
Reach Granite 4.2 30B +5
Granite 4.2 30B 90
Memory 25, IBM's own 4-bit MLX build granite-4.2-30b-q4-mlx is 16.47 GB, and 16.47 GB × 1.2 = 19.8 GB, which fits 24 GB but not 16 GB. Its Q4_0 GGUF is 16.58 GB and Ollama's library build granite4.2:30b 18 GB, the same band. Runtimes 25, Released versions run the granite architecture in llama.cpp (granite, b12242), vLLM (GraniteForCausalLM in the v0.33.0 registry), SGLang (granite.py at v0.5.23), Transformers (v5.22.2) and Ollama (its own granite4.2 library entry, 30b tag). Builds 15, IBM publishes FP8, MXFP4 and NVFP4 safetensors builds, a GGUF repository with Q4_0 to Q8_0 and BF16 files, and 4-bit, 8-bit and BF16 MLX builds, so quantised builds at two precisions or more. Terms 15, Apache 2.0, an OSI-approved licence, with no use policy or other terms added on the card. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the BF16, FP8, MXFP4, NVFP4, GGUF and MLX repositories, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps one inference provider (DeepInfra, live), short of the two the line needs. 25 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 90.
LFM3-1.7B 85
Memory 30, Liquid's Q4_K_M GGUF is 1.10 GB, and 1.10 GB × 1.2 = 1.3 GB, which fits 8 GB, well inside the 16 GB line. Runtimes 15, Released llama.cpp has the lfm3 architecture (src/models/lfm3.cpp at b12242), Ollama's library has an lfm3 entry, and LM Studio's catalogue runs the architecture (its liquid/lfm3-vl-2b entry; lmstudio-community publishes a GGUF of this model). Builds 15, Liquid's GGUF repository holds Q4_0, Q4_K_M, Q8_0, F16 and BF16 files, and Liquid publishes 4-bit and 8-bit MLX builds and an ONNX repository, all in the LiquidAI organisation. Terms 10, the LFM Open License v1.0, a custom licence that lets anyone use it commercially for free below a threshold of $10M annual revenue. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its GGUF, MLX and ONNX repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 5, Liquid's own API lists lfm3-1.7b among its models, so the publisher hosts it. 30 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 85.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Granite 4.2 30B | LFM3-1.7B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 85 | Granite 4.2 30B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 40 | Granite 4.2 30B +15 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 100 | LFM3-1.7B +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 87 | 67 | Granite 4.2 30B +20 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Granite 4.2 30B | LFM3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | IBM | Liquid AI |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-09-04 | 2026-11-09 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
Verdicts
Granite 4.2 30B
IBM's largest reasoning cousin, with the same strengths as the 3B. It runs in every runtime we count from IBM's own builds on a 24 GB card, is signed, plain Apache 2.0, and comes with a disclosure of its training data. No safety results are published and structured output isn't documented.
LFM3-1.7B
A 1.73B model that fits an 8 GB machine with room to spare, with a documented tool-call format, deferred tools, a thinking switch and a 256K context. It runs today in llama.cpp, Ollama and LM Studio only, loads in Transformers through repository code, and has no safety results, security contact or data sources.
Before you call either
Granite 4.2 30B
- Start it with
ollama run granite4.2:30b, orllama-server -hf ibm-granite/granite-4.2-30b-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja - With vLLM 0.32.0 or later leave out
--reasoning-parser-plugin, since the parser is built in, and use--tool-call-parser qwen3_coder - Thinking is on by default. Pass
enable_thinkingfalse to turn it off orlow_efforttrue for short reasoning - The context is 131,072 tokens. The card's 512K extension isn't documented
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
- IBM recommends Granite Guardian beside it to flag risky inputs and outputs
LFM3-1.7B
- Start it with
llama-server -hf LiquidAI/LFM3-1.7B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinjaorollama run lfm3 - Use temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition penalty 1.1 for chat, tools and agents, per the card
- Pass
enable_thinking=Falsefor direct answers, and expect it to reason anyway on hard tasks - For a large tool catalogue mark tools
defer_loadingand give it a search tool - Don't plan on vLLM or SGLang until a release carries LFM3
- Liquid doesn't recommend it for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Granite 4.2 30B or LFM3-1.7B?
Granite 4.2 30B and LFM3-1.7B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). LFM3-1.7B leads on agent interface.
Other comparisons with Granite 4.2 30B or LFM3-1.7B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM3-1.7B
- Arete-27B vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Arete-27B vs LFM3-1.7B
- BigBang-v1 vs Granite 4.2 30B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Carbon-X vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Carbon-X vs LFM3-1.7B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Granite 4.2 30B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Granite 4.2 30B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Granite 4.2 30B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Granite 4.2 30B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Granite 4.2 30B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Granite 4.2 30B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Granite 4.2 30B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3 vs Granite 4.2 30B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Granite 4.2 30B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Granite 4.2 30B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Granite 4.2 3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Granite 4.2 8B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Hy3
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Inkling
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Inkling-Small
- Granite 4.2 30B vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Kimi K3
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Kolibri-1
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Kronos
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Laguna M.1
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LBS-27B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Mistral Large 4
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs occamy-1.0
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Granite 4.2 30B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Granite 4.2 30B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling vs LFM3-1.7B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kronos vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- LBS-27B vs LFM3-1.7B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-1.7B
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- LFM3-1.7B vs Mistral Large 4
- LFM3-1.7B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM3-1.7B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- LFM3-1.7B vs occamy-1.0
- LFM3-1.7B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- LFM3-1.7B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- LFM3-1.7B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- LFM3-1.7B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/granite-4-2-30b-vs-lfm3-1-7b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/granite-4-2-30b.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm3-1-7b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare granite-4-2-30b lfm3-1-7b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "granite-4-2-30b", "b": "lfm3-1-7b"}at/mcp, no key