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

Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-9B

Nanbeige4.2-3B and Qwen3.5-9B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 60.5 (C). 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

  • Agent interface, 85 against 70
  • Documentation and upkeep, 72 against 34

Watch for

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

Qwen3.5-9B C

Best for Agents that want a small multimodal tool-calling model on a laptop or a 16 GB GPU, under a plain licence

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

Watch for

No quantised build from Qwen itself

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.

Documentation and upkeep Nanbeige4.2-3B +38

Nanbeige4.2-3B 72

Model card 17, Intended use, limitations, the architecture, the parameters (3B outside the embeddings), the context and the languages (in the metadata) are on the card. Training data 5, A general description of how the fine-tuning and reinforcement learning data was built and filtered, with no sources, sizes or cut-off. Last change 15, the last commit, on 11 September 2026, updated modeling_nanbeige.py, 60 days before this check and within 90. Responsiveness 20, Of the 34 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (21 July to 10 September 2026), 20 have a reply from a Nanbeige member, which is most. Version policy 5, Nanbeige's earlier models (Nanbeige4-3B, 4.1-3B) stay in their own repositories, as the Base, FP8, 8-bit and DSpark builds of this one do. File health 10, Config, tokenizer config, template and card agree on the architecture and the 262,144 tokens. 17 + 5 + 15 + 20 + 5 + 10 = 72.

Qwen3.5-9B 34

Model card 14, it covers intended use, architecture, parameters, context and 201 languages but gives no limitations and no knowledge cut-off. Training data 5, a general line about trillions of multimodal tokens with no cut-off. Last change 5, the files and card last changed on 2 March 2026 (c202236), 247 days before 4 November, within a year. Responsiveness 0, no Qwen member replied in any of the 40 most recent of the 45 discussions that aren't pull requests (2 March to 29 September 2026). Version policy 5, a first release that was never replaced in place, with no dated notes across generations. File health 5, two reports about the files and card (15 and 51) are still open with no reply. 14 + 5 + 5 + 0 + 5 + 5 = 34. The card's highlights mention sparse Mixture-of-Experts for the series while this 9B is dense, but its own overview matches config.json, so it's not counted as a contradiction.

Agent interface Nanbeige4.2-3B +15

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.

Qwen3.5-9B 70

Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10, the card names the qwen3_coder parser for vLLM and SGLang but leaves the declaration and return format to the template, and Qwen's own function-calling guide still describes Qwen3's Hermes format. Trained tool calling 20, the template renders several calls in one turn. Structured output 0, nothing documents asking the weights for JSON. Reasoning control 10, thinking turns off per request with enable_thinking false and the reasoning comes back in think tags that the qwen3 parser splits out. Context 10, 262,144 tokens native.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runNanbeige4.2-3BQwen3.5-9BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258585even
Risk20%205555even
Agent interface10%108570Nanbeige4.2-3B +15
Documentation and upkeep10%107234Nanbeige4.2-3B +38
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 60.5/100

Facts side by side

FactNanbeige4.2-3BQwen3.5-9B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorNanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin)Alibaba (Qwen team)
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 release2026-09-112026-03-02
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviewsnone2.5/5 (4)

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.

Qwen3.5-9B

A small dense vision-language model with trained tool calling, thinking that turns off per request and a 262,144-token context. Ollama's 4-bit build is 6.6 GB and the BF16 files 19.3 GB, and every major runtime loads it. The files haven't changed since 2 March 2026, Qwen answered none of the 40 latest discussions, and no safety results are published.

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

Qwen3.5-9B

  1. Smallest start is ollama run qwen3.5:9b (6.6 GB, q4_k_m)
  2. On vLLM run vllm serve Qwen/Qwen3.5-9B --port 8000 --max-model-len 262144 --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, or tool calls come back as text
  3. Tool calls use the XML style <tool_call><function=name><parameter=x>, not Hermes JSON, so use the qwen3_coder parser and not hermes
  4. Thinking is on by default; pass chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks, since /nothink isn't supported
  5. There's no generation_config.json, so pass sampling yourself, temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95, top_k 20, presence_penalty 1.5 when thinking, or 0.7, 0.8, 20, 1.5 without
  6. Keep at least 128K of context when thinking, and turn on YaRN only beyond 262,144 tokens
  7. Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Nanbeige4.2-3B or Qwen3.5-9B?

Nanbeige4.2-3B and Qwen3.5-9B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 60.5 (C).

Other comparisons with Nanbeige4.2-3B or Qwen3.5-9B

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.