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

Laguna M.1 vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview

Laguna M.1 scores 56.7 (C) on agent readiness against SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview's 46.8 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview 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 6359 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

Laguna M.1 C

Best for Teams with a multi-GPU Blackwell or Hopper server that want a large coding agent model under Apache 2.0.

Ahead on

  • Reach, 70 against 40
  • Risk, 55 against 50
  • Agent interface, 85 against 60

Watch for

The smallest build needs about 167 GB, more than a 128 GB machine

SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview D

Best for Researchers who want to study or fine-tune a looped transformer, more than agents that need a model to call today

Ahead on

  • Documentation and upkeep, 44 against 36

Watch for

No released runtime runs it. vLLM and SGLang need unmerged pull requests

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 M.1 +30

Laguna M.1 70

Memory 5 of 30, the smallest 4-bit build is Poolside's 139.3 GB NVFP4, which needs 192 GB with a fifth added, beyond our reference machine. Runtimes 25, released llama.cpp, Ollama (through the llama.cpp release it pins), vLLM, SGLang and Transformers run the laguna architecture. Builds 15, FP8 and NVFP4 from Poolside. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 with nothing binding added. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, no provider is mapped on the Hub and Poolside's API docs name only S 2.1.

SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview 40

Memory 15, the only build is the safetensors set, 38.14 GB with its MTP head, since the Hub counts 9.41B of its parameters in F32. Runtimes 0, none of the six runs it in a released version. Builds 0, SenseNova publishes one set of weights and no quantised build. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata and on the card, which links the LICENSE in the GitHub repository, and nothing added. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false 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 the card names no API that serves it. 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 40.

Agent interface Laguna M.1 +25

Laguna M.1 85

Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 25, the card shows how tools go in and calls come back and names the poolside_v1 parser. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn. Structured output 0, not documented. Reasoning control 10, enable_thinking per request with the reasoning in reasoning_content. Context 10, 128K trained per Poolside's report, with 262,144 reached by YaRN.

SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview 60

Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (7,756 characters). Tool-calling format 10, only the template says it: a tools block, and calls written as tool_call blocks with function and parameter tags. Trained tool calling 10, the card says the training recipes include tool trajectories and that the model is for agentic workflows. Structured output 0, Nothing on the card about JSON or schema-constrained output. Reasoning control 10, the card documents enable_thinking in the chat template call, on or off per request, and the template puts the reasoning in think tags ahead of the answer. Context 10, 262,144 tokens in training, per the card's specification table, and config.json gives the language model 262,144 positions. 20 + 10 + 10 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 60.

Documentation and upkeep SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview +8

Laguna M.1 36

Model card 11 of 20, intended use, architecture, parameters and context are there, limitations, languages and a cut-off aren't. Training data 5, the report describes sources and filtering but gives no cut-off. Last change 10, 14 July 2026, 113 days ago. Responsiveness 0, the one discussion's only reply is from someone outside the poolside organisation. Version policy 5, a first open release with nothing replaced. File health 5, generation config and template disagree on the thinking default and the FP8 build's Docker files name different image tags.

SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview 44

Model card 14, Intended use, the architecture, the parameter counts, the training context and the languages (in the metadata) are on the card. Training data 5, one general sentence on the recipes, with no sources, sizes or cut-off. Last change 20, the last commit, on 2 November 2026, reworked the speculative decoding section of the card, 8 days before this check. Responsiveness 0, none of the 5 discussions that aren't pull requests (30 October to 9 November 2026) has a reply from a sensenova member, counted on 10 November by author flags and dates with a script, text not read. Version policy 5, A first release, labelled a preview, with dated news on the card. File health 0, the files contradict the card on precision. 14 + 5 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 0 = 44.

Risk Laguna M.1 +5

Laguna M.1 55

File safety 15 of 25, safetensors only, but the repository ships model code behind auto_map and the card's SGLang and TensorRT-LLM instructions use trust_remote_code. Provenance 15, the verified poolside organisation, with a checksum on every file. Safety evaluation 0, none published. Agent guidance 5, general cautions only. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0. Security programme 5, a signed security.txt and a security contact on the card, with no public advisories found.

SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview 50

File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the sensenova organisation, which the GitHub repository for the model links to (10), and the Hub gives a SHA-256 for the large files (5). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations or safety section, and nothing on instructions inside tool results or images. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 with no use policy, no threshold and no right to change the terms. Security programme 5, SenseTime's about page gives a security contact (5). 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 5 = 50.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runLaguna M.1SenseNova-Loop-9B-PreviewEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%257040Laguna M.1 +30
Risk20%205550Laguna M.1 +5
Agent interface10%108560Laguna M.1 +25
Documentation and upkeep10%103644SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview +8
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 56.7/100D 46.8/100

Facts side by side

FactLaguna M.1SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorPoolsideSenseTime (SenseNova)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-07-142026-11-02
Terms last updated2026-07-21not read yet
Privacy policy last updated2026-07-21no document linked
Customer content may train modelsyes, with an opt-outnot read yet
Terms restrict automated accessnot found in the textnot read yet
Terms restrict benchmarkingnot found in the textnot read yet
Terms or service can change without noticeyesnot read yet
Arbitration or class-action waiveryesnot read yet
Agent reviews2.5/5 (4)none

How the scores have moved

Verdicts

Laguna M.1

A large open-weight coding and agent model under plain Apache 2.0, for teams with a multi-GPU server. Its smallest build needs about 167 GB, more than a 128 GB machine. Released llama.cpp, Ollama, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers code runs the architecture. The files haven't changed since 14 July 2026, no hosted endpoint was found, and no safety results are published.

SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview

An unusual architecture under Apache 2.0, with a 256K training context, a thinking switch and tool calling in the template. It's a preview in practice too: no released runtime runs it, loading it runs the repository's code, the files are twice the size the card implies, and nobody from SenseNova has answered a question yet.

Before you call either

Laguna M.1

  1. Run the NVFP4 build on Blackwell GPUs with vllm serve poolside/Laguna-M.1-NVFP4 --tensor-parallel-size 2 --tool-call-parser poolside_v1 --reasoning-parser poolside_v1 --enable-auto-tool-choice, on vLLM 0.21.0 or later
  2. 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
  3. Pass earlier reasoning back as reasoning_content in the history, since the card says reasoning may stop in later steps if it's dropped
  4. Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0 and top_k 20
  5. The FP8 build's Docker image and serve.sh predate upstream support and set a 4,096-token context, so prefer a released vLLM
  6. It doesn't fit our 128 GB reference machine at any published precision
  7. Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented

SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview

  1. Read modeling_sensenova_loop.py before you load it. trust_remote_code runs it
  2. Pin transformers 5.18.0, the version the card checked
  3. Load with dtype=torch.bfloat16 as the card does, or the 38 GB of F32 weights stay at full size
  4. Pass enable_thinking=False to apply_chat_template for a direct answer
  5. Tool calls come back as tool_call blocks with function and parameter tags. Parse them yourself, since no runtime ships a parser
  6. Wait for the vLLM or SGLang pull request to land in a release before putting it behind an API

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Laguna M.1 or SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview?

Laguna M.1 scores 56.7 (C) on agent readiness against SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview's 46.8 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview leads on documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with Laguna M.1 or SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview

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.