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

Nanbeige4.2-3B vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT

Nanbeige4.2-3B 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. 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

Nanbeige4.2-3B C

Best for Local agents that need tool calling and a long context on a laptop or a small GPU

Ahead on

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

Watch for

Its own architecture: Transformers loads it only with the repository's code

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

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

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.

Reach Nanbeige4.2-3B +35

Nanbeige4.2-3B 85

Memory 30, the smallest build from Nanbeige is the FP8 repository (the 8-bit GPTQ one is the same size), 5.19 GB, and 5.19 GB × 1.2 = 6.2 GB, within 16 GB. bartowski's GGUF isn't read for this line. Runtimes 15, Released SGLang 0.5.23 has the model (srt/models/nanbeige.py) with its parsers, llama.cpp b12242 has the nanbeige architecture, and vLLM 0.33.0 names NanbeigeForCausalLM in its registry, served through its Transformers backend. Builds 15, Quantised builds from Nanbeige at two precisions, FP8 and 8-bit GPTQ, each in its own repository. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata, an OSI licence, with no use policy or other terms on the card. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its FP8 and 8-bit repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps no inference provider to it, and no Nanbeige or BOSS Zhipin API for it was found. 30 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 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.

Agent interface Nanbeige4.2-3B +25

Nanbeige4.2-3B 85

Chat template 20, A Jinja chat template in tokenizer_config.json (7,961 characters), with enable_thinking, preserve_thinking, tools and tool_call_format switches. Tool-calling format 25, the card says passing tools switches on the tool template and recommends tool_call_format xml, with json for compatibility, and its SGLang and vLLM commands name the nanbeige tool-call parser, which released SGLang 0.5.23 has. Trained tool calling 20, the card describes fine-tuning on tool-use environments and agent scaffolds and reinforcement learning on agent tasks, and the template tells the model it may call one or more functions and renders every call in a turn. Structured output 0, Neither the card nor the files mention JSON or JSON Schema output, beyond json as a tool-call format. Reasoning control 10, the card documents enable_thinking, on by default and False per request, and preserve_thinking for earlier turns, and names the nanbeige reasoning parser, which returns the reasoning apart from the answer. Context 10, 262,144 tokens, which the card says the model supports and config.json gives as max_position_embeddings. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.

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.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runNanbeige4.2-3BOTel-2.0-LLM-31B-ITEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258550Nanbeige4.2-3B +35
Risk20%205555even
Agent interface10%108560Nanbeige4.2-3B +25
Documentation and upkeep10%107274OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT +2
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 56.8/100

Facts side by side

FactNanbeige4.2-3BOTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorNanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin)AT&T (Open Telco AI)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0 (Hub metadata only; the repository has no LICENSE file)Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-09-112026-11-01
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked

Verdicts

Nanbeige4.2-3B

A small model built for agent work, with tool calling it was trained for, a thinking switch and a 256K context in about 5 GB, under Apache 2.0, from a lab that answers most questions. Its architecture is its own, so check your runtime: SGLang and llama.cpp have it, Transformers needs the repository's code, and Nanbeige ships no GGUF.

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

Nanbeige4.2-3B

  1. Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later and pass --tool-call-parser nanbeige --reasoning-parser nanbeige
  2. Pass tools in the request. The card recommends tool_call_format="xml"
  3. Set preserve_thinking true for multi-turn tool use and coding, false for plain chat
  4. Use temperature 1.0 for agent and tool work and 0.6 for reasoning and chat, per the card
  5. For llama.cpp use b12242 or later. The GGUF files on the Hub are bartowski's, not Nanbeige's
  6. If you load it with Transformers, read modeling_nanbeige.py first: trust_remote_code runs it

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, Nanbeige4.2-3B or OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT?

Nanbeige4.2-3B 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.

Other comparisons with Nanbeige4.2-3B 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.