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

Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B

Laguna S 2.1 and Ornith-1.5-122B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). 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 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

  • Risk, 55 against 50
  • Documentation and upkeep, 41 against 36

Watch for

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

Ornith-1.5-122B C

Best for Local coding and terminal agents on a 128 GB unified-memory machine or a 96 GB GPU setup, where a clear licence file and an answering publisher aren't required

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

Watch for

No LICENSE file though the card links one, and no notice for the Apache 2.0 Qwen3.5 and Gemma 4 work it builds on

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 S 2.1 +5

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.

Ornith-1.5-122B 50

File safety 25, safetensors and GGUF only and no Python in any of Ornith's repositories for this size, so the card's --trust-remote-code flag loads nothing from the repository. Provenance 15, the files come from the ornith-ai organisation Ornith's blog links to, with a SHA-256 for every weight file. Safety evaluation 0 and agent guidance 0, nothing published on either. Licence risk 10, MIT carries no policy, threshold or changeable terms, but the card's licence link is broken. Security programme 0, no security.txt, disclosure policy or security contact.

Documentation and upkeep Laguna S 2.1 +5

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.

Ornith-1.5-122B 36

Model card 11, it covers intended use, architecture, parameters and context but not limitations, languages or a knowledge cut-off. Training data 5, a description of the method with no data or cut-off. Last change 20, a folder upload to the MLX builds on 24 October 2026, 17 days ago. Responsiveness 0, Ornith answered none of the 5 questions and reports. Version policy 0, the MLX builds were uploaded a second time four days after the first with no note. File health 0, the card links a missing LICENSE, states hardware its own files don't fit and names a variant that doesn't exist, and the two chat templates differ. 11 + 5 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 36.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runLaguna S 2.1Ornith-1.5-122BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%257575even
Risk20%205550Laguna S 2.1 +5
Agent interface10%108585even
Documentation and upkeep10%104136Laguna S 2.1 +5
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactLaguna S 2.1Ornith-1.5-122B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorPoolsideOrnith
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceOpenMDW-1.1MIT
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-08-192026-10-24
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 reviews2.3/5 (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.

Ornith-1.5-122B

The largest Ornith that fits a 128 GB machine, a coding and terminal-agent cousin on Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's architecture with XML tool calls and 262,144 tokens of context. Its 4-bit builds need 84 to 93 GB. The main risk is an absent publisher, with no licence file, safety results or replies, and a card that misstates the hardware.

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

Ornith-1.5-122B

  1. Start it with ollama run ornith-1.5:122b-q4_K_M, or llama-server -hf ornith-ai/Ornith-1.5-122B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja -c 262144
  2. Budget about 92 GB for the Q4_K_M GGUF with a working context, and less context if the machine has under 100 GB for the model
  3. In vLLM pass --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_xml --reasoning-parser qwen3, and in SGLang --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder --reasoning-parser qwen3, so tool calls and reasoning come back parsed
  4. Thinking is on by default. Send chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention
  5. Pin which template your runtime loads, since chat_template.jinja keeps earlier reasoning and the tokenizer_config.json template drops it
  6. Use temperature 0.6, top_p 0.95, top_k 20 for coding and temperature 1.0 for general tasks, as the card recommends
  7. Add mmproj-Ornith-1.5-122B-BF16.gguf (0.9 GB) for image input in llama.cpp, and validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Laguna S 2.1 or Ornith-1.5-122B?

Laguna S 2.1 and Ornith-1.5-122B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C).

Other comparisons with Laguna S 2.1 or Ornith-1.5-122B

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.