Laguna XS 2.1 vs Llama 4 Maverick
Poolside · US | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Laguna XS 2.1 for remarkable efficiency — 70.9% on swe-bench verified from only 3b active parameters or open weights under openmdw-1.1, shipped day one in bf16, fp8, nvfp4 and int4 across every major runtime. Pick Llama 4 Maverick for open weights, 1m context or strong image + text understanding. On a tight budget at scale, Llama 4 Maverick is the value pick.
Laguna XS 2.1 (Poolside) and Llama 4 Maverick (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Laguna XS 2.1 is a 33B open-weight coding MoE running on 3B active parameters — 70.9% SWE-Bench Verified and very cheap, but unproven. Llama 4 Maverick is meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
- ▸Context window: Llama 4 Maverick holds 3.8× more — 1M (~1,500 pages) vs 256K (~393 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
- ▸Recency: Laguna XS 2.1 is the newer model by about 15 months (released July 2, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | Laguna XS 2.1 | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Poolside (US) | Meta (US) |
| Released | July 2, 2026 | April 2025 |
| Context window | 256K (~393 pages) | 1M (~1,500 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | $0.1/$0.2 per 1M tokens | Open weight (self-host / free) |
| Open weight? | Yes — self-hostable | Yes — self-hostable |
| Modalities | text, code | text, image, code |
| SWE-Bench Verified | 70.9% | Not published |
| MRCR v2 @ 1M | Not published | Not published |
Who wins what
Remarkable efficiency — 70.9% on SWE-Bench Verified from only 3B active parameters
Laguna XS 2.1
A 33B open-weight coding MoE running on 3B active parameters — 70.9% SWE-Bench Verified and very cheap, but unproven — and it is the newer of the two.
Open weights under OpenMDW-1.1, shipped day one in BF16, FP8, NVFP4 and INT4 across every major runtime
Laguna XS 2.1
Laguna XS 2.1 lists open weights under OpenMDW-1.1, shipped day one in BF16, FP8, NVFP4 and INT4 across every major runtime among its strengths; Llama 4 Maverick does not.
Cheap even on the paid tier, at roughly a sixth of GLM 4.7's input price
Laguna XS 2.1
Laguna XS 2.1 lists cheap even on the paid tier, at roughly a sixth of GLM 4.7's input price among its strengths; Llama 4 Maverick does not.
Open weights, 1M context
Llama 4 Maverick
Its 1M window holds about 3.8× more than Laguna XS 2.1's 256K in a single prompt.
Strong image + text understanding
Llama 4 Maverick
Meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Self-hostable
Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick lists self-hostable among its strengths; Laguna XS 2.1 does not.
Lowest cost at scale
Llama 4 Maverick
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Laguna XS 2.1's $0.1/$0.2 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
Llama 4 Maverick
Its 1M window is about 3.8× larger than Laguna XS 2.1's 256K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Llama 4 Maverick
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Laguna XS 2.1, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Llama 4 Maverick
Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is remarkable efficiency — 70.9% on swe-bench verified from only 3b active parameters
→ Laguna XS 2.1
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is open weights, 1m context
→ Llama 4 Maverick
That is its strongest area.
Laguna XS 2.1: where it fits
A 33B open-weight coding MoE running on 3B active parameters — 70.9% SWE-Bench Verified and very cheap, but unproven. Released July 2, 2026 by Poolside, it is built for remarkable efficiency — 70.9% on SWE-Bench Verified from only 3B active parameters, open weights under OpenMDW-1.1, shipped day one in BF16, FP8, NVFP4 and INT4 across every major runtime, cheap even on the paid tier, at roughly a sixth of GLM 4.7's input price, and unusually transparent evaluation — it publishes its harness, step limits, and sandbox specs.
Its trade-offs are real: weeks old with no independent replication; every published score traces back to Poolside's own harness, the free endpoint trains on your inputs and outputs — disqualifying for proprietary code, which is its main use case, and weak on harder agentic work (37.5 on Terminal-Bench 2.0), and its gain over XS.2 is barely above noise. At $0.1 in / $0.2 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Llama 4 Maverick: where it fits
Meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for open weights, 1M context, strong image + text understanding, self-hostable, and 400B MoE, 17B active.
Its trade-offs: needs serious hardware to self-host, and trails closed frontier on reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
Laguna XS 2.1 and Llama 4 Maverick overlap enough that the right pick depends on your specific job. Llama 4 Maverick costs less per token; Llama 4 Maverick holds the larger context; and each leads in its own area — Laguna XS 2.1 for remarkable efficiency — 70.9% on swe-bench verified from only 3b active parameters, Llama 4 Maverick for open weights, 1m context. Rather than crowning one, run the same hard task through both once and let the results decide.
Want both Laguna XS 2.1 and Llama 4 Maverick without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is Laguna XS 2.1 or Llama 4 Maverick better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for Llama 4 Maverick, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Laguna XS 2.1 leans toward remarkable efficiency — 70.9% on swe-bench verified from only 3b active parameters while Llama 4 Maverick leans toward open weights, 1m context, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Laguna XS 2.1 or Llama 4 Maverick?
Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper — $0.1/$0.2 per 1M tokens vs Open weight (self-host / free).
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Maverick — 1M vs 256K, about 3.8× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Laguna XS 2.1 and Llama 4 Maverick together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Laguna XS 2.1, Llama 4 Maverick and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Laguna XS 2.1 or Llama 4 Maverick?
Laguna XS 2.1 — released July 2, 2026, about 15 months after Llama 4 Maverick.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.