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

Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash

Laguna S 2.1 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against MiniMax-M3.1-Flash's 50.5 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3260 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

Laguna S 2.1 C

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

  • Reach, 75 against 40
  • Risk, 55 against 35
  • Agent interface, 85 against 70

Watch for

No reply from Poolside to any of 34 discussions, many of them reports about thinking and tool calls

MiniMax-M3.1-Flash D

Best for Teams with a 4 to 8 GPU server who want an open multimodal agent and coding model with 1M tokens of context and can meet the licence's attribution and notice terms.

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

Watch for

No released vLLM or SGLang ran it on 24 October 2026; only llama.cpp b11861 from that day did

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runLaguna S 2.1MiniMax-M3.1-FlashEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%257540Laguna S 2.1 +35
Risk20%205535Laguna S 2.1 +20
Agent interface10%108570Laguna S 2.1 +15
Documentation and upkeep10%104141even
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100D 50.5/100

Facts side by side

FactLaguna S 2.1MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorPoolsideMiniMax
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceOpenMDW-1.1MiniMax Community License (custom; commercial use needs a "Built with MiniMax M3.1-Flash" line and a one-time notice to MiniMax, and MiniMax's written authorisation above $20M yearly revenue)
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-08-192026-10-23
Terms last updatedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linked
Customer content may train models
Terms restrict automated access
Terms restrict benchmarking
Terms or service can change without notice
Arbitration or class-action waiver
Agent reviews2.3/5 (4)2.3/5 (4)

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.

MiniMax-M3.1-Flash

A 428B mixture-of-experts model, 23B active, for agent work, coding and computer use, with image and video input, about 1M tokens of context and parallel tool calls. It needs a 4 to 8 GPU server for 250 GB of NVFP4 and MXFP8 weights, and vLLM and SGLang support was pre-release on 24 October 2026. Commercial use needs attribution and notice.

Before you call either

Laguna S 2.1

  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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Thinking is on by default in the template, pass chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false to turn it off, and keep reasoning_content from earlier turns
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Expect occasional tool-schema slips in harnesses unlike Poolside's own, and validate JSON arguments, which Poolside lists as known limitations

MiniMax-M3.1-Flash

  1. Check the use case first; commercial products must show "Built with MiniMax M3.1-Flash" and notify MiniMax once, or get written authorisation above $20M yearly revenue
  2. On 8 H100 or H200 GPUs use vLLM's nightly image vllm/vllm-openai:minimax-m31-flash with --tensor-parallel-size 8 --block-size 128 --kv-cache-dtype fp8 --moe-backend marlin --max-model-len 262144
  3. Pass --reasoning-parser minimax_m3 --tool-call-parser minimax_m3 --enable-auto-tool-choice in vLLM, or minimax-m3 for both in SGLang with --trust-remote-code
  4. --block-size 128 is mandatory in vLLM, since MSA's sparse block size is 128
  5. Set effort per request with chat_template_kwargs reasoning_effort (low, medium, high, xhigh, max); sample at temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95
  6. On Blackwell or MI355X, 4 GPUs serve it with the DSpark draft from dspark/; vLLM's Hopper command leaves DSpark off and turns video input off
  7. For GGUF builds by others, use llama.cpp b11861 or later; earlier builds mis-scale the NVFP4 experts and produce garbage
  8. Without the hardware, call MiniMax-M3.1-Flash on MiniMax's API (minimax-api), whose thinking defaults to max effort

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Laguna S 2.1 or MiniMax-M3.1-Flash?

Laguna S 2.1 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against MiniMax-M3.1-Flash's 50.5 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories.

Other comparisons with Laguna S 2.1 or MiniMax-M3.1-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.