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
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.
Specifications
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.
Frequently 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.
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.
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.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.