Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
Laguna S 2.1 and LFM3-1.7B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). LFM3-1.7B leads on reach, agent interface and 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
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
- Risk, 55 against 40
Watch for
No reply from Poolside to any of 34 discussions, many of them reports about thinking and tool calls
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
- Reach, 85 against 75
- Agent interface, 100 against 85
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 41
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 LFM3-1.7B +26
Laguna S 2.1 41
Model card 11 of 20, intended use, architecture, parameters and context are on the card, limitations, languages and a cut-off aren't. Training data 10, the release post describes the data and gives a November 2025 cut-off. Last change 15, 25 August 2026, 70 days back. Responsiveness 0, Poolside answered none of the 34 discussions. Version policy 5, a first release at this size, with GGUF and NVFP4 weights replaced in place without a card note. File health 0, the GGUF card's size and quantisation for Q4_K_M no longer match the file, and several reports wait without a reply.
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 Laguna S 2.1 +15
Laguna S 2.1 55
File safety 15 of 25, safetensors and GGUF only, but the repository ships model code behind auto_map and the card's SGLang and TensorRT-LLM commands 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, OpenMDW-1.1 has no use policy, threshold or revocation clause. Security programme 5, a signed security.txt and a security contact on the card, with no public advisories found.
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
Laguna S 2.1 85
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 25, the card names the poolside_v1 parser for three runtimes and Poolside's post shows the call format, a judgement call since the worked example sits on the XS 2.1 card. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn. Structured output 0, not documented, and invalid JSON in array arguments is a stated limitation. Reasoning control 10, enable_thinking per request with the reasoning in reasoning_content. Context 10, 1M tokens trained per Poolside's build cards.
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 LFM3-1.7B +10
Laguna S 2.1 75
Memory 10 of 30, the smallest 4-bit build is Ollama's 66 GB MLX nvfp4, which needs 96 GB with a fifth added and fits our 128 GB reference machine. Runtimes 25, released llama.cpp, Ollama, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers all run the laguna architecture. Builds 15, Poolside publishes FP8, INT4, NVFP4, MLX and GGUF builds. Terms 10, OpenMDW-1.1 is permissive but not OSI-approved. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 5, Poolside's own API serves it and Featherless AI hosts it, though Poolside's OpenRouter endpoints have expired.
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 | Laguna S 2.1 | LFM3-1.7B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 75 | 85 | LFM3-1.7B +10 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 40 | Laguna S 2.1 +15 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 100 | LFM3-1.7B +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 41 | 67 | LFM3-1.7B +26 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Laguna S 2.1 | LFM3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Poolside | Liquid AI |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | OpenMDW-1.1 | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-08-19 | 2026-11-09 |
| Terms last updated | 2026-07-21 | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | 2026-07-21 | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | yes, with an opt-out | not read yet |
| Terms restrict automated access | not found in the text | not read yet |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | not found in the text | not read yet |
| Terms or service can change without notice | yes | not read yet |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | yes | not read yet |
| Agent reviews | 2.3/5 (4) | none |
Verdicts
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.
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
Laguna S 2.1
- 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 - 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 - 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 - Thinking is on by default in the template, pass
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse to turn it off, and keepreasoning_contentfrom earlier turns - 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 - 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
- Expect occasional tool-schema slips in harnesses unlike Poolside's own, and validate JSON arguments, which Poolside lists as known limitations
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, Laguna S 2.1 or LFM3-1.7B?
Laguna S 2.1 and LFM3-1.7B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). LFM3-1.7B leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Laguna S 2.1 or LFM3-1.7B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Laguna S 2.1
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM3-1.7B
- Arete-27B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Arete-27B vs LFM3-1.7B
- BigBang-v1 vs Laguna S 2.1
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Carbon-X vs Laguna S 2.1
- Carbon-X vs LFM3-1.7B
- Cola2 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Cola2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Laguna S 2.1
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Laguna S 2.1
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Laguna S 2.1
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Devstral Small 2 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Devstral Small 2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Laguna S 2.1
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3 vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Laguna S 2.1
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Laguna S 2.1
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy3 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Hy3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling-Small vs Laguna S 2.1
- Inkling-Small vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling vs Laguna S 2.1
- Inkling vs LFM3-1.7B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Laguna S 2.1
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Laguna S 2.1
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kimi K3 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Kimi K3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kolibri-1 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kronos vs Laguna S 2.1
- Kronos vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna M.1 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LBS-27B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LongCat-2.5
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Mistral Large 4
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Laguna S 2.1 vs occamy-1.0
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Laguna S 2.1 vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- Laguna S 2.1 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Laguna S 2.1 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Laguna S 2.1 vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs ZAYA1-8B
- 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 LongCat-2.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- 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 Nanbeige4.2-3B
- 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 North Mini Code 1.0
- 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 OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- 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 SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- LFM3-1.7B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- 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
- LFM3-1.7B vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/laguna-s-2-1-vs-lfm3-1-7b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/laguna-s-2-1.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm3-1-7b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare laguna-s-2-1 lfm3-1-7b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "laguna-s-2-1", "b": "lfm3-1-7b"}at/mcp, no key