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

Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Nanbeige4.2-3B

Nanbeige4.2-3B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Kimi K3.1 Pro's 48.6 (D), and leads in every scored category. 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

Kimi K3.1 Pro D

Best for Operators with a multi-accelerator node who want Moonshot's newest open-weight model for coding and long agent sessions, and everyone else through an API

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

Watch for

1,561 GB of files, so it needs a node of eight large accelerators at least

Nanbeige4.2-3B C

Best for Local agents that need tool calling and a long context on a laptop or a small GPU

Ahead on

  • Reach, 85 against 40
  • Risk, 55 against 50
  • Agent interface, 85 against 65
  • Documentation and upkeep, 72 against 51

Watch for

Its own architecture: Transformers loads it only with the repository's 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 Nanbeige4.2-3B +45

Kimi K3.1 Pro 40

Memory 0, the only build is Moonshot's 1,561 GB MXFP4 release, far above 256 GB. Runtimes 5, llama.cpp b12242 alone has the model code in a release, since vLLM's recipe needs 0.34.0 and SGLang's cookbook a branch. Builds 10, one precision. Terms 10, free commercial use below a model-as-a-service revenue threshold. Download 10, not gated. Hosted 5, Moonshot's API and Together serve it. 0 + 5 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 40.

Nanbeige4.2-3B 85

Memory 30, the smallest build from Nanbeige is the FP8 repository (the 8-bit GPTQ one is the same size), 5.19 GB, and 5.19 GB × 1.2 = 6.2 GB, within 16 GB. bartowski's GGUF isn't read for this line. Runtimes 15, Released SGLang 0.5.23 has the model (srt/models/nanbeige.py) with its parsers, llama.cpp b12242 has the nanbeige architecture, and vLLM 0.33.0 names NanbeigeForCausalLM in its registry, served through its Transformers backend. Builds 15, Quantised builds from Nanbeige at two precisions, FP8 and 8-bit GPTQ, each in its own repository. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata, an OSI licence, with no use policy or other terms on the card. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its FP8 and 8-bit repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps no inference provider to it, and no Nanbeige or BOSS Zhipin API for it was found. 30 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 85.

Documentation and upkeep Nanbeige4.2-3B +21

Kimi K3.1 Pro 51

Model card 11, no limitations, languages or cut-off. Training data 5, one general sentence. Last change 20, a commit on 5 November 2026. Responsiveness 0, none of the 8 newest discussions has a reply from Moonshot. Version policy 5, Kimi K3 keeps its repository and no dated note was found. File health 10, the files agree. 11 + 5 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 51.

Nanbeige4.2-3B 72

Model card 17, Intended use, limitations, the architecture, the parameters (3B outside the embeddings), the context and the languages (in the metadata) are on the card. Training data 5, A general description of how the fine-tuning and reinforcement learning data was built and filtered, with no sources, sizes or cut-off. Last change 15, the last commit, on 11 September 2026, updated modeling_nanbeige.py, 60 days before this check and within 90. Responsiveness 20, Of the 34 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (21 July to 10 September 2026), 20 have a reply from a Nanbeige member, which is most. Version policy 5, Nanbeige's earlier models (Nanbeige4-3B, 4.1-3B) stay in their own repositories, as the Base, FP8, 8-bit and DSpark builds of this one do. File health 10, Config, tokenizer config, template and card agree on the architecture and the 262,144 tokens. 17 + 5 + 15 + 20 + 5 + 10 = 72.

Agent interface Nanbeige4.2-3B +20

Kimi K3.1 Pro 65

Chat template 10, the format is only code to run. Tool-calling format 10, the parser is named in the runtimes' recipes and the card doesn't say how tools are declared. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn on Kimi K3's tools channel. Structured output 5, named among linked guides without the how. Reasoning control 10, reasoning_effort per request. Context 10, 1M tokens. 10 + 10 + 20 + 5 + 10 + 10 = 65.

Nanbeige4.2-3B 85

Chat template 20, A Jinja chat template in tokenizer_config.json (7,961 characters), with enable_thinking, preserve_thinking, tools and tool_call_format switches. Tool-calling format 25, the card says passing tools switches on the tool template and recommends tool_call_format xml, with json for compatibility, and its SGLang and vLLM commands name the nanbeige tool-call parser, which released SGLang 0.5.23 has. Trained tool calling 20, the card describes fine-tuning on tool-use environments and agent scaffolds and reinforcement learning on agent tasks, and the template tells the model it may call one or more functions and renders every call in a turn. Structured output 0, Neither the card nor the files mention JSON or JSON Schema output, beyond json as a tool-call format. Reasoning control 10, the card documents enable_thinking, on by default and False per request, and preserve_thinking for earlier turns, and names the nanbeige reasoning parser, which returns the reasoning apart from the answer. Context 10, 262,144 tokens, which the card says the model supports and config.json gives as max_position_embeddings. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.

Risk Nanbeige4.2-3B +5

Kimi K3.1 Pro 50

File safety 15, safetensors only, less 10 for remote code and prompts built by the repository's script. Provenance 15, Moonshot's own organisation with a hash on every file. Safety evaluation 10, Moonshot's own cyber benchmark results and nobody else's yet. Agent guidance 0, none on the card. Licence risk 10, the revenue threshold. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw found. 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 + 10 + 0 = 50.

Nanbeige4.2-3B 55

File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the Nanbeige organisation (Nanbeige LLM Lab), which the lab's arXiv report for this model links, so the publisher's own account, although the Hub hasn't verified it (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 5, General cautions: the limitations section says outputs may be inaccurate, biased or harmful. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, no threshold and no clause letting the licensor change or revoke it. Security programme 5, BOSS Zhipin runs a security response centre for reporting flaws in its products, as read for the Nanbeige4.3-33B listing (5), though nothing links it to the model. 15 + 15 + 0 + 5 + 15 + 5 = 55.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runKimi K3.1 ProNanbeige4.2-3BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%254085Nanbeige4.2-3B +45
Risk20%205055Nanbeige4.2-3B +5
Agent interface10%106585Nanbeige4.2-3B +20
Documentation and upkeep10%105172Nanbeige4.2-3B +21
Negative events≤1500
TotalD 48.6/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactKimi K3.1 ProNanbeige4.2-3B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorMoonshot AINanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceKimi K3.1 Pro License (modified MIT)Apache-2.0 (Hub metadata only; the repository has no LICENSE file)
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-11-052026-09-11
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked

Verdicts

Kimi K3.1 Pro

Moonshot's newest flagship, eight days old when read, for operators with a rack. Only llama.cpp has its model code in a release, with vLLM and SGLang support still on a release candidate and a branch. The licence is permissive below a revenue threshold, and Moonshot hasn't answered a discussion on the repository yet.

Nanbeige4.2-3B

A small model built for agent work, with tool calling it was trained for, a thinking switch and a 256K context in about 5 GB, under Apache 2.0, from a lab that answers most questions. Its architecture is its own, so check your runtime: SGLang and llama.cpp have it, Transformers needs the repository's code, and Nanbeige ships no GGUF.

Before you call either

Kimi K3.1 Pro

  1. Use Moonshot's API or Together unless you have a node of eight B300-class accelerators
  2. With vLLM use 0.34.0 or later and the recipe's flags, --tool-call-parser kimi_k3 --reasoning-parser kimi_k3
  3. Pass the whole assistant message back in later turns, reasoning_content and tool_calls included, as the card requires
  4. Set reasoning_effort to low, high or max per request. Max is the default and thinking can't be turned off
  5. Kimi K3's model code doesn't load it, because the attention layers changed
  6. Validate JSON output yourself, since the card doesn't document structured output for the weights

Nanbeige4.2-3B

  1. Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later and pass --tool-call-parser nanbeige --reasoning-parser nanbeige
  2. Pass tools in the request. The card recommends tool_call_format="xml"
  3. Set preserve_thinking true for multi-turn tool use and coding, false for plain chat
  4. Use temperature 1.0 for agent and tool work and 0.6 for reasoning and chat, per the card
  5. For llama.cpp use b12242 or later. The GGUF files on the Hub are bartowski's, not Nanbeige's
  6. If you load it with Transformers, read modeling_nanbeige.py first: trust_remote_code runs it

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Kimi K3.1 Pro or Nanbeige4.2-3B?

Nanbeige4.2-3B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Kimi K3.1 Pro's 48.6 (D), and leads in every scored category.

Other comparisons with Kimi K3.1 Pro or Nanbeige4.2-3B

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.