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

LFM3-1.7B vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT

LFM3-1.7B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT's 56.8 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT leads on 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 6359 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

LFM3-1.7B C

Best for Agents on a laptop, phone or small server that need tool calling and a long context from a model under 2 GB at 4 bits

Ahead on

  • Reach, 85 against 50
  • Agent interface, 100 against 60

Watch for

vLLM and SGLang have no released support, though the card lists both

OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT C

Best for Telecoms teams that want an open model for standards questions and RAG on their own hardware

Ahead on

  • Risk, 55 against 40
  • Documentation and upkeep, 74 against 67

Watch for

BF16 only at 62.6 GB, with no GGUF or other quantised build from anyone we checked

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.

Agent interface LFM3-1.7B +40

LFM3-1.7B 100

Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (12,129 characters), with roles, tools, deferred tools, tool results and the thinking switch. Tool-calling format 25, the card and Liquid's tool-use page document tools passed through tools= in apply_chat_template, calls returned as XML and results sent back as tool messages. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over every entry in an assistant turn's tool_calls, so several calls fit in one turn, and the card says the model was trained on tool calls and agentic traces and with reinforcement learning inside agent harnesses. Structured output 15, Liquid's API guide documents response_format with a JSON Schema, with lfm3-1.7b as the model in its examples, and says the schema is checked before generation starts. Reasoning control 10, the card documents enable_thinking=False in the chat template to turn reasoning off per request, with reasoning on by default inside think tags, and preserve_thinking for earlier turns. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, which says the mid-training stage extended the context window to 256K, and max_position_embeddings 262144 in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 15 + 10 + 10 = 100.

OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT 60

Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository, 19,300 characters, the publisher's own. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says how tools are declared and how calls come back. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over tool_calls, so it renders several calls in one turn, and the card says the training mix included general-purpose agentic tool-calling examples, while none were specific to telecoms. Structured output 0, the card doesn't document JSON or JSON Schema output. Reasoning control 0, the card says the model wasn't trained to produce or consume Gemma's thought channel and answers directly, so there is no thinking to switch or budget. Context 10, 262,144 positions in the text config, the base's native context. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.

Reach LFM3-1.7B +35

LFM3-1.7B 85

Memory 30, Liquid's Q4_K_M GGUF is 1.10 GB, and 1.10 GB × 1.2 = 1.3 GB, which fits 8 GB, well inside the 16 GB line. Runtimes 15, Released llama.cpp has the lfm3 architecture (src/models/lfm3.cpp at b12242), Ollama's library has an lfm3 entry, and LM Studio's catalogue runs the architecture (its liquid/lfm3-vl-2b entry; lmstudio-community publishes a GGUF of this model). Builds 15, Liquid's GGUF repository holds Q4_0, Q4_K_M, Q8_0, F16 and BF16 files, and Liquid publishes 4-bit and 8-bit MLX builds and an ONNX repository, all in the LiquidAI organisation. Terms 10, the LFM Open License v1.0, a custom licence that lets anyone use it commercially for free below a threshold of $10M annual revenue. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its GGUF, MLX and ONNX repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 5, Liquid's own API lists lfm3-1.7b among its models, so the publisher hosts it. 30 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 85.

OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT 50

Memory 10, the publisher's only build is the BF16 safetensors, 62.55 GB for the 15 shards the index names, and 62.55 GB × 1.2 = 75.1 GB, above 64 GB and inside the reference machine's GPU share. Runtimes 15, the architecture is Gemma4ForConditionalGeneration, which vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23 and Transformers 5.22.2 run from the safetensors files, three at 5 each. Builds 0, the publisher ships the BF16 weights only. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata, an OSI licence, with nothing added on the card. Download 10, gated is false on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account or terms. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps one inference provider, Featherless AI (live), short of the two the line needs. 10 + 15 + 0 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 50.

Risk OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT +15

LFM3-1.7B 40

File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, files in the LiquidAI organisation, which Liquid's docs page for the model and its blog post link to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card or in Liquid's blog post for the LFM3 family, neither of which mentions safety testing. Agent guidance 0, Nothing on prompt injection, an instruction hierarchy, what refusals cover or safeguards to add. Licence risk 10, 15 less 5 for the $10M annual revenue threshold on commercial use. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw found. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 10 + 0 = 40.

OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT 55

File safety 25, safetensors only, with no .bin, .pt or .pth files and no Python files. Provenance 5, the files sit in a personal account, farbodtavakkoli, not in an organisation AT&T's or GSMA's site links to: GSMA's article names AT&T as the releaser without linking the repository, and the GitHub repository that links it is the same person's (0). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 10, the card says what the trained abstention covers (declining when context is missing, irrelevant or insufficient) and what to add around the model for agent use: an external tool runtime, validated tool schemas, permission controls, audit logging, safeguards and human review. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, field-of-use limit, threshold or change clause, nothing is added on the card, and the licence link resolves (200 on 10 November 2026). Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw found. 25 + 5 + 0 + 10 + 15 + 0 = 55.

Documentation and upkeep OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT +7

LFM3-1.7B 67

Model card 17, Intended use (local agents, tool calling, structured outputs, fine-tuning), a limitation (not recommended for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning), architecture (24 layers: 13 gated short convolutions, 5 sliding-window and 6 global attention), parameters (1.73B), context (256K) and 16 languages. Training data 5, A general description: 22T tokens of pre-training in two stages with the kinds of data added since LFM2, 1.75T tokens of supervised fine-tuning, then mixed reinforcement learning, distillation from six specialist teachers and agentic reinforcement learning. Last change 20, the last commit, on 9 November 2026, added the OpenVINO checkpoint to the card's inference table, a day before this check. Responsiveness 10, Of the 22 discussions that aren't pull requests (27 October to 8 November 2026), 7 have a reply from a LiquidAI member, which is some. Version policy 5, LFM3 came out in new repositories and the LFM2.5 models stay in theirs. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the lfm3 architecture, the 262,144-token context and the thinking switch. 17 + 5 + 20 + 10 + 5 + 10 = 67.

OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT 74

Model card 14, Intended use, a long limitations section, the architecture and training method, the parameters (31B) and the language (English) are on the card. Training data 15, the card names the sources (3GPP, ETSI, ITU, GSMA, CAMARA, O-RAN and TM Forum material provided by GSMA), the overall sizes (15 billion raw tokens, over 1 trillion processed, about 440 billion used), the mix of example types and the processing tool, and lists what was left out. Last change 20, the last commit, on 1 November 2026, updated the card's links, resources, citation and contacts, nine days before this check. Responsiveness 20, Of the 3 discussions that aren't pull requests (7 August to 28 October 2026), 2 have a reply from the repository's owner, which is most. Version policy 0, the weights were replaced in place: uploads on 27 July, 3 August and 1 September 2026 under one name, with a standing notice on the card that they may change and that users should pin a revision, and no dated note of what changed. File health 5, the card describes 15 shards of about 62.6 GB while the repository still holds an earlier 14-shard set beside them, 126.8 GB in all. 14 + 15 + 20 + 20 + 0 + 5 = 74.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runLFM3-1.7BOTel-2.0-LLM-31B-ITEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258550LFM3-1.7B +35
Risk20%204055OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT +15
Agent interface10%1010060LFM3-1.7B +40
Documentation and upkeep10%106774OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT +7
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 56.8/100

Facts side by side

FactLFM3-1.7BOTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorLiquid AIAT&T (Open Telco AI)
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
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtyesno
Last release2026-11-092026-11-01
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked

Verdicts

LFM3-1.7B

A 1.73B model that fits an 8 GB machine with room to spare, with a documented tool-call format, deferred tools, a thinking switch and a 256K context. It runs today in llama.cpp, Ollama and LM Studio only, loads in Transformers through repository code, and has no safety results, security contact or data sources.

OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT

A real telecoms post-training of Gemma 4 31B IT with an unusually candid card on what was and wasn't trained. It fits a 128 GB machine in BF16 only, with no quantised build, sits in a personal account, and its weights have been replaced in place. Tool-call format, structured output and safety results aren't documented.

Before you call either

LFM3-1.7B

  1. Start it with llama-server -hf LiquidAI/LFM3-1.7B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja or ollama run lfm3
  2. Use temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition penalty 1.1 for chat, tools and agents, per the card
  3. Pass enable_thinking=False for direct answers, and expect it to reason anyway on hard tasks
  4. For a large tool catalogue mark tools defer_loading and give it a search tool
  5. Don't plan on vLLM or SGLang until a release carries LFM3
  6. Liquid doesn't recommend it for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning

OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT

  1. Download the 15 shards the index names, not the whole repository, which is twice the size
  2. Pin a revision. The card says the weights may change under the same name
  3. Serve it with vLLM 0.19.0 or later and the repository's own chat template, not Gemma 4's
  4. Send no thinking flags. It answers directly and wasn't trained on Gemma's thought channel
  5. Use it as the generation stage of a RAG pipeline over telecom standards, with source attribution and human review
  6. Don't use it to run network tools unattended. The card says that hasn't been evaluated

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, LFM3-1.7B or OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT?

LFM3-1.7B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT's 56.8 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT leads on risk and documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with LFM3-1.7B or OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT

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.