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

LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B

Nanbeige4.3-33B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3341 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

LFM2.5-2.6B D

Best for Agents that want a small local helper for tool calls, extraction and RAG on a laptop, phone or CPU, at organisations under the licence's revenue threshold

Ahead on

  • Reach, 95 against 55

Watch for

Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue

Nanbeige4.3-33B C

Best for Agents with about 96 GB of GPU memory, or the 128 GB reference machine, that want an Apache-tagged 33B model for long coding and tool loops and can wait for independent results.

Ahead on

  • Risk, 60 against 50
  • Agent interface, 85 against 75

Watch for

No independent benchmark result yet; every agentic number on the card is Nanbeige's own run

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runLFM2.5-2.6BNanbeige4.3-33BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%259555LFM2.5-2.6B +40
Risk20%205060Nanbeige4.3-33B +10
Agent interface10%107585Nanbeige4.3-33B +10
Documentation and upkeep10%105756LFM2.5-2.6B +1
Negative events≤1500
TotalD 51.5/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactLFM2.5-2.6BNanbeige4.3-33B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorLiquid AINanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceLFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue)Apache-2.0 (Hub metadata only; the repository has no LICENSE file)
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtyesno
Last release2026-09-222026-10-24
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno 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 reviews2.5/5 (4)none

Verdicts

LFM2.5-2.6B

A small, fast cousin for tool calls, extraction and long-context steps on a laptop or phone. Liquid's own 4-bit build is 1.6 GB, and every common runtime runs it. It always thinks, isn't meant for coding or knowledge-heavy work, and organisations over $10M of revenue need another licence. There are no safety results or security contact.

Nanbeige4.3-33B

A dense 33B Llama-architecture cousin for long agentic coding and office tasks, with per-request thinking, XML tool calls that stock vLLM and SGLang parse, and 512K of context. It needs about 96 GB at BF16, as Nanbeige ships no quantised build. Its agentic results so far are Nanbeige's own, with no safety results, training data notes or licence file.

Before you call either

LFM2.5-2.6B

  1. Quickest start is ollama run LiquidAI/lfm2.5-2.6b, 1.7 GB, or llama-cli -hf LiquidAI/LFM2.5-2.6B-GGUF
  2. With vLLM or SGLang pass --tool-call-parser lfm2; for vLLM add --reasoning-parser qwen3 so the thinking comes back separately
  3. Sample at temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition_penalty 1.1, as the card and generation_config.json set
  4. Put tools in the system prompt as List of tools: [...] JSON, or pass tools to apply_chat_template; calls come back as a Python list of function calls, and the system prompt can ask for JSON calls instead
  5. Leave max_tokens unset or generous, since a low cap cuts the reasoning off mid-thought
  6. Earlier thinking is dropped from the prompt unless preserve_thinking is true
  7. Liquid's 328M LFM2.5-2.6B-DSpark drafter speeds decoding about 2.6 times in SGLang and on Apple silicon, per Liquid
  8. Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented

Nanbeige4.3-33B

  1. Serve with vllm serve Nanbeige/Nanbeige4.3-33B --enable-auto-tool-choice --reasoning-parser qwen3 --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, as the card says, or SGLang with the same two parsers
  2. Keep tool_call_format at its default xml, since qwen3_coder parses that format; the json option writes Hermes-style JSON calls, which need a different parser such as vLLM's hermes
  3. Pass chat_template_kwargs {"preserve_thinking": true} for multi-turn tool use and coding, and {"enable_thinking": false} to skip reasoning, as the card recommends
  4. Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and up to 65,536 new tokens for agent work, and temperature 0.6 for reasoning and chat, per the card
  5. Send your own system prompt, since without one the template injects a Chinese identity line, or a Chinese tool-expert prompt when tools are passed
  6. Send one system message at the start only, as the template raises an error for a later one
  7. In plain Transformers pass use_cache=True to generate, since config.json and generation_config.json set it false; trust_remote_code isn't needed

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or Nanbeige4.3-33B?

Nanbeige4.3-33B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach.

Other comparisons with LFM2.5-2.6B or Nanbeige4.3-33B

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.