Laguna by Poolside vs SWE-2: Features, Pricing & Which Is Better (2026)
A side-by-side comparison of Laguna by Poolside and SWE-2 — features, pricing, and ideal use cases — to help you decide which AI tool fits your workflow.
Laguna by Poolside
Poolside
Poolside's family of open Mixture-of-Experts foundation models for agentic coding — XS.2 runs locally, M.1 reaches 72.5% on SWE-bench Verified.
Key features
- Two Model Sizes: Laguna XS.2 (33B total / 3B active) and Laguna M.1 (225B total / 23B active) target different latency and capability needs.
- Mixture-of-Experts Architecture: Routes each token through a subset of experts for efficiency at large scale.
- Local Deployment: XS.2 is small enough to run on a Mac with 36 GB of RAM via Ollama under an Apache 2.0 license.
- Strong SWE-bench Results: XS.2 hits 68.2% and M.1 reaches 72.5% on SWE-bench Verified.
- Bundled Coding Agent: Ships 'pool,' a lightweight terminal-based coding agent.
- Agent Client Protocol: Includes a dual ACP client-server used internally for agent RL training and evaluation.
Best for
- Local Agentic Coding: Running XS.2 on a laptop for private, offline code generation and editing.
- High-Capability Code Tasks: Using M.1 for harder, long-horizon software engineering work.
- Self-Hosted Deployments: Building on open weights to avoid third-party API dependencies.
- Research & Fine-Tuning: Adapting permissively licensed weights for custom coding workflows.
- Benchmarking: Evaluating agentic coding performance against SWE-bench Verified and Pro.
SWE-2
Cognition
Cognition's coding model that scores 50.0% on FrontierCode 1.1 Main at 64% lower cost than comparable frontier models.
Key features
- Pareto-Frontier Cost Efficiency: Matches GPT-5.6 Sol and Fable 5/5.1 on coding benchmarks at a fraction of their price and comes within a few points of GPT-6 Astra at roughly a quarter of the cost.
- Single-Run Multi-Effort RL: A reinforcement learning algorithm trains all reasoning-effort levels in one run, applying a per-level linear cost penalty derived from the base model's local frontier slope.
- Focused Codebase Exploration: Stronger engineering judgment lets the model decide which parts of a repository matter, cutting mean steps per run from 127 to 53 at medium effort.
- Selectable Effort Levels: Ships medium, high and max reasoning settings so teams can trade additional steps and cost for accuracy on harder tasks.
- End-to-End Test Writing: Produces tests that validate an implementation end to end, catching regressions and edge cases more reliably than previous SWE models.
- Resourceful Task Recovery: When an expected route is blocked — an unavailable MCP integration, for example — it finds an alternative path to the same answer within the user's stated boundaries.
- Efficient Training and Serving Stack: NVFP4/FP8 kernels, quantization-aware training and an online draft model cut memory use and train-inference mismatch despite nearly 3x the base parameters of SWE-1.7.
- Hardened Verifier Flywheel: Triples the number of RL environments, adds instruction-following overlays, and uses earlier SWE-2 checkpoints to iteratively strengthen verifiers.
Best for
- Agentic Software Engineering: Powering Devin sessions that plan, edit, build and test changes across a real repository with minimal supervision.
- Cost-Sensitive Coding at Scale: Teams running large volumes of automated coding tasks pick a model that holds frontier-adjacent accuracy at a materially lower per-task cost.
- Terminal and Tooling Workflows: Strong Terminal-Bench results suit tasks driven through shell commands, build systems and command-line tooling.
- Regression Test Generation: Generating end-to-end tests for existing implementations to catch edge cases before a release.
- Effort-Tiered Task Routing: Routing simple tickets to medium effort and hard migrations to high or max effort within the same model deployment.
- Benchmark and Model Evaluation: Engineering leaders compare coding model options on published FrontierCode, DeepSWE and Terminal-Bench numbers alongside cost.