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

Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B

Laguna S 2.1 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Nemotron 3 Nano 4B's 56.8 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Nemotron 3 Nano 4B leads on reach, risk 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 2870 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

  • 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

Nemotron 3 Nano 4B C

Best for Agents on laptops, edge boards and small GPUs that need a cheap local tool-calling helper in English

Ahead on

  • Reach, 90 against 75
  • Risk, 65 against 55
  • Documentation and upkeep, 55 against 41

Also in its favour

  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.3 against 2.3 out of 5

Watch for

The card's Transformers and vLLM commands pass trust_remote_code and load a parser plugin from the repository

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runLaguna S 2.1Nemotron 3 Nano 4BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%257590Nemotron 3 Nano 4B +15
Risk20%205565Nemotron 3 Nano 4B +10
Agent interface10%108570Laguna S 2.1 +15
Documentation and upkeep10%104155Nemotron 3 Nano 4B +14
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 56.8/100

Facts side by side

FactLaguna S 2.1Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorPoolsideNVIDIA
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceOpenMDW-1.1NVIDIA Nemotron Open Model License
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-08-192026-03-16
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)3.3/5 (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.

Nemotron 3 Nano 4B

A tiny reasoning cousin with trained tool calls, a thinking switch and 262,144 tokens of context, running in about 4 GB from NVIDIA's own GGUF on almost any machine. The main risks are serving commands that run repository code, no published safety results, a tool format left to the template, and files untouched and questions unanswered since March.

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

Nemotron 3 Nano 4B

  1. Quickest start is ollama run nemotron-3-nano:4b, a 2.8 GB build
  2. With llama.cpp use llama-server -hf nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-4B-GGUF --jinja, NVIDIA's own Q4_K_M file
  3. With vLLM, download nano_v3_reasoning_parser.py from the repository first and serve with --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder --reasoning-parser-plugin nano_v3_reasoning_parser.py --reasoning-parser nano_v3
  4. The card's Transformers snippet names nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-4B, use nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-4B-BF16 instead
  5. Thinking is on by default. Pass enable_thinking=False to the chat template for short tasks
  6. Use temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95 for reasoning and temperature 0.6 with top_p 0.95 for tool calling, as the card says
  7. It's tuned for English only, and validate JSON yourself, since structured output isn't documented

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Laguna S 2.1 or Nemotron 3 Nano 4B?

Laguna S 2.1 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Nemotron 3 Nano 4B's 56.8 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Nemotron 3 Nano 4B leads on reach, risk and documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with Laguna S 2.1 or Nemotron 3 Nano 4B

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.