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

Laguna M.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash

Step 3.7 Flash scores 59.8 (C) on agent readiness against Laguna M.1's 56.7 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Laguna M.1 leads on 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

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

  • Risk, 55 against 45

Watch for

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

Step 3.7 Flash C

Best for Teams with a GPU server or a provider account that want an open, long-context agent model with vision

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

Watch for

About 131 GB to run at 4 bits with images, over a 128 GB machine's share

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.

Risk Laguna M.1 +10

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.

Step 3.7 Flash 45

File safety 15, safetensors and GGUF only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the stepfun-ai organisation, which the card's StepFun platform and model page belong to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations section and gives no guidance on prompt injection, instruction priority, refusals or safeguards. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, threshold or change clause. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw on the card, and our StepFun API listing found no security.txt, bug bounty or disclosure policy. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runLaguna M.1Step 3.7 FlashEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%257070even
Risk20%205545Laguna M.1 +10
Agent interface10%108585even
Documentation and upkeep10%103639Step 3.7 Flash +3
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 56.7/100C 59.8/100

Facts side by side

FactLaguna M.1Step 3.7 Flash
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorPoolsideStepFun
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0 (metadata and card; no LICENSE file)
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-07-142026-06-03
Terms last updated2026-07-21no document linked
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.

Step 3.7 Flash

A capable open agent model with a clean licence, every kind of build and four released runtimes. Two things hold it back: it's a little too big for a 128 GB machine at 4 bits, whatever the card says, and StepFun has gone quiet on the repository since June. No safety results, limitations or data description.

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

Step 3.7 Flash

  1. On a 128 GB machine the 4-bit GGUF won't fit with a working context. Use StepFun's API or a provider, or a server
  2. On vLLM or SGLang pass --tool-call-parser step3p5 --reasoning-parser step3p5
  3. The card's commands pass trust-remote-code. Released Transformers 5.22.2 has the model built in if you'd rather not run the repository's code
  4. For llama.cpp load the mmproj file from StepFun's GGUF repository for image input
  5. StepFun's API has two hosts. Use the one where your key was issued, api.stepfun.ai or api.stepfun.com
  6. The same model is on our StepFun API listing, with prices and terms

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Laguna M.1 or Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash scores 59.8 (C) on agent readiness against Laguna M.1's 56.7 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Laguna M.1 leads on risk.

Other comparisons with Laguna M.1 or Step 3.7 Flash

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.