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

LFM3-Omni-2B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B

LFM3-Omni-2B and Nanbeige4.3-33B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 60.8 (C). Nanbeige4.3-33B leads on risk, agent interface 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 4969 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

LFM3-Omni-2B C

Best for Voice and camera agents on a laptop or phone that want one small model for hearing, seeing, speaking and calling tools

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

Watch for

Only llama.cpp and Ollama run it in a release

Nanbeige4.3-33B C

Best for Agents with a 32 GB GPU (INT4) or more, or the 128 GB reference machine at BF16, that want an Apache-tagged 33B model for long coding and tool loops.

Ahead on

  • Risk, 60 against 40
  • Agent interface, 85 against 70
  • Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 49

Watch for

Independent results so far are Artificial Analysis's alone (Intelligence Index v5.0 20.4, Terminal-Bench 4.0 29.8 per cent); the card's other agentic numbers are Nanbeige's own runs

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 Nanbeige4.3-33B +20

LFM3-Omni-2B 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.

Nanbeige4.3-33B 60

File safety earns 25, safetensors only and no repository code, so the card's trust_remote_code has nothing to run. Provenance earns 15, the lab's own organisation as its arXiv report links it, with a hash for every file. Safety evaluation earns 0 and agent guidance 0, since neither card says anything on either. Licence risk keeps all 15 under Apache 2.0. The security programme earns 5 for BOSS Zhipin's security response centre, which isn't linked to the model.

Agent interface Nanbeige4.3-33B +15

LFM3-Omni-2B 70

Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (13,513 characters), with roles, images, video and audio, tools, deferred tools and tool results. 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 documents tool calling from spoken or written requests. Structured output 0, the card doesn't mention JSON or structured output for this model. Reasoning control 0, the card says this is a non-reasoning model and that enable_thinking=True is not supported, so there is no thinking to turn off or budget. Context 5, 32K tokens of input and output per the card. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 5 = 70.

Nanbeige4.3-33B 85

The chat template earns 20, Jinja in tokenizer_config.json. The tool-calling format earns 25, with the XML call format in the template and the qwen3_coder parser named for vLLM and SGLang. Trained tool calling earns 20, several calls per turn in the template. Structured output earns 0, as nothing mentions it. Reasoning control earns 10, thinking switched per request with the qwen3 reasoning parser named. Context earns 10 for 512K set in the config with no scaling.

Documentation and upkeep Nanbeige4.3-33B +7

LFM3-Omni-2B 49

Model card 14, Intended use (one on-device model in place of separate speech recognition, vision, language and speech models), architecture, parameters (2.17B), context (32K) and the text and speech languages. Training data 5, the card has no training section. Last change 20, the last commit, on 3 November 2026, changed the card's navigation icons, seven days before this check, and the one before it, on 28 October, documented video frame rate and frame limits. Responsiveness 0, none of the 12 discussions that aren't pull requests (27 October to 9 November 2026) has a reply from a LiquidAI member. Version policy 5, LFM3 came out in new repositories and the LFM2.5 models stay in theirs. File health 5, the card gives a 32K context while config.json gives the language model 128,000 positions and Liquid's API lists 128,000 for the hosted model, so the card and the files don't agree on context. 14 + 5 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 5 = 49.

Nanbeige4.3-33B 56

The model card earns 11, with intended use, parameters, context and languages but no limitations, architecture or cut-off. Training data earns 0, as nothing describes it. Last change earns 20 for the quantised builds of 31 October 2026. Responsiveness earns 10, a Nanbeige member answering nine of 30 discussions. Version policy earns 5 for a first release, with a config change made and reverted under bare commit titles. File health earns 10, the files and the card agreeing.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runLFM3-Omni-2BNanbeige4.3-33BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258080even
Risk20%204060Nanbeige4.3-33B +20
Agent interface10%107085Nanbeige4.3-33B +15
Documentation and upkeep10%104956Nanbeige4.3-33B +7
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 60.8/100

Facts side by side

FactLFM3-Omni-2BNanbeige4.3-33B
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 release2026-11-032026-10-31
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked

How the scores have moved

Verdicts

LFM3-Omni-2B

One 2.17B model that sees, listens and talks on an 8 GB machine and turns spoken requests into tool calls. Only llama.cpp and Ollama run it in a release. The context is 32K, it doesn't reason, Liquid hasn't answered a question on the repository, and there are no safety results or data sources.

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. Nanbeige's INT4 build needs about 27 GB. Artificial Analysis's first independent runs give it 20.4 on its Intelligence Index, and there are no safety results, training data notes or licence file.

Before you call either

LFM3-Omni-2B

  1. Start it with llama-server -hf LiquidAI/LFM3-Omni-2B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja or ollama run lfm3-omni
  2. Greedy decoding for text. For speech use audio_temperature 0.4 and audio_repetition_penalty 1.2, per the card
  3. The context is 32K, and llama.cpp samples video at 2 frames a second up to 384 frames
  4. Parse tool calls yourself from the XML it returns
  5. It doesn't reason, so don't pass enable_thinking
  6. Validate JSON output yourself

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. On a 32 GB GPU use Nanbeige/Nanbeige4.3-33B-INT4 with the same vLLM or SGLang flags; the INT8 and FP8 builds need about 43 GB
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Send one system message at the start only, as the template raises an error for a later one
  8. 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, LFM3-Omni-2B or Nanbeige4.3-33B?

LFM3-Omni-2B and Nanbeige4.3-33B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 60.8 (C). Nanbeige4.3-33B leads on risk, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with LFM3-Omni-2B 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.