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

LFM3-VL-2B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B scores 64.7 (B) on agent readiness against LFM3-VL-2B's 61 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. 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-VL-2B C

Best for Agents on a laptop, phone or robot that need to read screens, documents, images and video from a model under 2 GB at 4 bits

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

Watch for

vLLM and SGLang support is unreleased, which the card says itself

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B B

Best for Agents on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac that want a fast tool-calling reasoning model with long context and a permissive licence

Ahead on

  • Risk, 75 against 40

Watch for

No safety evaluation results published

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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B +35

LFM3-VL-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.

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B 75

File safety earns 25, safetensors only with no Python files, and nothing from the repository runs to load it or parse its output. Provenance earns 15, files in NVIDIA's linked organisation with a hash for every file. Safety evaluation earns 0, since NVIDIA says it evaluated content safety but publishes no results. Agent guidance earns 10, a subcard that names prompt injection and the safeguards to add, without an instruction hierarchy. Licence risk keeps all 15 under OpenMDW-1.1. The security programme earns 10 for the reporting route on the card and NVIDIA's public bulletins.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runLFM3-VL-2BNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258585even
Risk20%204075Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B +35
Agent interface10%109090even
Documentation and upkeep10%107775LFM3-VL-2B +2
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100B 64.7/100

Facts side by side

FactLFM3-VL-2BNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorLiquid AINVIDIA
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceLFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue)OpenMDW-1.1
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtyesno
Last release2026-11-092026-08-11
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviewsnone3/5 (4)

How the scores have moved

Verdicts

LFM3-VL-2B

A 1.92B vision model that reads images and video on an 8 GB machine, with a documented tool-call format and thinking. It runs today in llama.cpp, Ollama and LM Studio, while vLLM and SGLang support is still unreleased. Transformers needs repository code, and there are no safety results, security contact or data sources.

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B

A small agent cousin, 3B active parameters, with trained parallel tool calls, a thinking switch and up to 1M tokens of context, under a permissive licence. It runs in about 23 GB from the GGUF or Ollama builds, and NVIDIA's NVFP4 build needs NVIDIA GPUs. The main risks are no published safety results and one answered question across two repositories.

Before you call either

LFM3-VL-2B

  1. Start it with llama-server -hf LiquidAI/LFM3-VL-2B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja or ollama run lfm3-vl, with llama.cpp b11960 or later
  2. Use temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition penalty 1.1, per the card
  3. Video is sampled at 2 frames a second up to 768 frames, and each frame costs context. Video input in llama.cpp needs ffmpeg
  4. Don't plan on vLLM or SGLang until a release carries LFM3-VL
  5. Validate JSON output yourself
  6. Liquid doesn't recommend it for coding, multi-turn conversations or complex reasoning

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B

  1. Quickest start is ollama run nemotron-3.5-lightning, about 19 to 25 GB of files depending on the platform
  2. On the reference machine use llama-server -hf ggml-org/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3.5-Lightning-30B-A3B-GGUF:Q4_0 --jinja, since the card's Q4_K_M tag doesn't exist there and NVFP4 needs NVIDIA GPUs
  3. With vLLM serve it with --reasoning-parser nemotron_v3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder (SGLang uses --reasoning-parser nemotron_3)
  4. Use temperature=1.0 and top_p=0.95, as the card says
  5. Thinking is on by default. Pass chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks
  6. For coding agents pass force_nonempty_content: true in chat_template_kwargs, which vLLM's nemotron_v3 parser reads so a cut-off reasoning trace still returns content
  7. Go past 262,144 tokens only with the card's flags (VLLM_ALLOW_LONG_MAX_MODEL_LEN=1, --max-model-len 1048576) and enough memory

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, LFM3-VL-2B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B scores 64.7 (B) on agent readiness against LFM3-VL-2B's 61 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories.

Other comparisons with LFM3-VL-2B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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.