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

Laguna XS 2.1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B

Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B scores 67.1 (B) on agent readiness against Laguna XS 2.1's 61 (C), and leads in every scored category. 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 XS 2.1 C

Best for Agents that want a fast local coding model on a 32 GB GPU or Mac, with tool calling and a permissive licence.

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

Watch for

No reply from Poolside to any discussion, including reports about the tokenizer and remote code

Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B B

Best for Agents with a 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac that want a quick tool-calling and reasoning cousin with very long context.

Ahead on

  • Reach, 90 against 85
  • Risk, 60 against 55
  • Agent interface, 90 against 85
  • Documentation and upkeep, 75 against 46

Also in its favour

  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.3 against 2.8 out of 5

Watch for

The documented vLLM, SGLang and TensorRT-LLM commands pass trust-remote-code and load a parser file from the repository

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runLaguna XS 2.1Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258590Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B +5
Risk20%205560Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B +5
Agent interface10%108590Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B +5
Documentation and upkeep10%104675Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B +29
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100B 67.1/100

Facts side by side

FactLaguna XS 2.1Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorPoolsideNVIDIA
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceOpenMDW-1.1NVIDIA Nemotron Open Model License (custom, Apache-style, commercial use allowed, not an OSI licence)
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-08-192026-08-24
Terms last updated
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 reviews2.8/5 (4)3.3/5 (4)

Verdicts

Laguna XS 2.1

A small coding and agent cousin with 3B active parameters, so it's quick on modest hardware. Poolside's 4-bit GGUF, also Ollama's default, needs about 24 GB, and every major runtime runs it. The main risks are that nobody at Poolside answers its discussions, there are no safety results, and the SGLang route runs repository code.

Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B

A fast hybrid Mamba-Transformer cousin with 3.5B active parameters for reasoning and tool calling over very long inputs, in every major local runtime. A 4-bit build needs about 22 to 23 GB. The main risks are that NVIDIA's documented vLLM path runs repository code, no safety results are published and NVIDIA hasn't answered reports since March.

Before you call either

Laguna XS 2.1

  1. Quickest start is ollama run laguna-xs-2.1, 20 GB of files, the same Q4_K_M as Poolside's GGUF
  2. On our reference machine use llama-server -hf poolside/Laguna-XS-2.1-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja -c 131072, from a llama.cpp release with the laguna architecture (b11772 has it), or BF16 with vLLM (66.9 GB)
  3. With vLLM use --tool-call-parser poolside_v1 --reasoning-parser poolside_v1 --enable-auto-tool-choice, on a build with vllm-project/vllm#47311, or --tool-call-parser glm47 on older builds
  4. 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
  5. Pass earlier reasoning back as reasoning_content in the history, since the card says reasoning may stop in later steps if it's dropped
  6. Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0 and top_k 20
  7. The card warns that Ollama on Apple Silicon may return empty output until llama.cpp#25389 ships
  8. Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented

Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B

  1. Start it with ollama run nemotron-3-nano:30b (18 GB MLX on a Mac, 24 GB q4_K_M elsewhere)
  2. On the reference machine use BF16 with vLLM, after wget https://huggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16/resolve/main/nano_v3_reasoning_parser.py, then vllm serve nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16 --max-model-len 262144 --trust-remote-code --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder --reasoning-parser-plugin nano_v3_reasoning_parser.py --reasoning-parser nano_v3
  3. NVFP4 needs an NVIDIA Blackwell GPU, and FP8 isn't documented on gfx1151
  4. Without the qwen3_coder tool parser and the nano_v3 reasoning parser, tool calls and reasoning come back as plain text
  5. Card sampling is temperature 0.6 and top_p 0.95 for tool calling, temperature 1.0 and top_p 1.0 for reasoning
  6. Thinking is on by default, so pass enable_thinking as false in chat_template_kwargs for short tasks
  7. Set VLLM_ALLOW_LONG_MAX_MODEL_LEN=1 and raise --max-model-len only when you need more than 262,144 tokens
  8. In SGLang the main branch names the reasoning parser nemotron_3, not the card's nano_v3
  9. Filter untrusted tool results before they reach the model, as NVIDIA warns prompt injection can lead to code execution
  10. Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since none is documented for the model

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Laguna XS 2.1 or Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B?

Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B scores 67.1 (B) on agent readiness against Laguna XS 2.1's 61 (C), and leads in every scored category.

Other comparisons with Laguna XS 2.1 or Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B

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.