Nanbeige LLM Lab has released Nanbeige4.3-33B on Hugging Face under the Apache 2.0 license. Nanbeige4.3-33B is a 33B dense language model built for agentic coding and office-style ‘cowork’ tasks. The lab sits inside the recruitment platform BOSS Zhipin. It also published Nanbeige4.3-33B-Base for custom post-training. The model supports a 524,288-token context window. In the lab’s own table, it leads 17 of 20 benchmarks against 3 open models near 30B.
TL;DR
- Size: 33B parameters, dense (no MoE), 524,288-token (512K) context, BF16 weights.
- Runs on: Multi-GPU servers. The card’s SGLang and vLLM recipes use 4-way tensor parallelism. BF16 weights need about 66 GB (our arithmetic). 1 community quantization is listed.
- Performance: Leads 17 of 20 rows in Nanbeige’s own comparison against Qwen3.8-27B, Muse-Glimmer-30B and Gemma4-31B.
- Best: 80.9 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, versus 73.0 for Qwen3.8-27B.
- Worst: 23.8 on Terminal-Bench 4.0 (its lowest score). It also trails Qwen3.8-27B on SWE-Bench Pro, 60.3 vs 61.7.
What is Nanbeige4.3-33B?
Nanbeige4.3-33B is the flagship ‘teacher’ model of the Nanbeige4.3 series. The lab’s stated strategy is to build a strong teacher first. It then plans to distill agentic skills into smaller models, starting with Nanbeige4.3-3B.
How is Nanbeige4.3-33B built?
The config.json declares a standard LlamaForCausalLM architecture. There is no expert routing, so all 33B parameters run on every token.
- 52 layers, hidden size 7,168
- 56 query heads and 8 key-value heads (grouped-query attention), head dimension 128
- FFN intermediate size 22,016, vocabulary of 166,912 tokens
- RoPE theta of 120,000,000 and 524,288 max positions
The chat template exposes 3 controls. enable_thinking toggles reasoning and is on by default. preserve_thinking keeps reasoning from earlier turns. Nanbeige recommends it for multi-turn tool use and code agents. Passing tools enables tool calling, and an XML call format is recommended.
How does Nanbeige4.3-33B perform on benchmarks?
Nanbeige compared the model with Qwen3.8-27B, Muse-Glimmer-30B and Gemma4-31B. Every model ran at its highest thinking effort, with shared hyperparameters and harnesses. All scores in this section are self-reported.
- Agentic coding: It scores 80.9 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, against 73.0 for Qwen3.8-27B. DeepSWE shows the widest gap: 65.5 versus 42.5. On Terminal-Bench 4.0, it scores 23.8 while Gemma4-31B scores 0.0.
- Agentic cowork: It posts 54.2 on Automation Bench versus 38.3, and 44.8 on JobBench versus 34.5. On YC-bench, simulated earnings reach $1,025,437 versus $641,290.
- Reasoning: It reports 95.2 on AIME 2026 and 84.0 on AA-LCR.
It loses 3 of 20 rows. Qwen3.8-27B leads SWE-Bench Pro (61.7 vs 60.3) and GDPval (86.4 vs 84.8). Gemma4-31B leads GPQA Diamond in Nanbeige’s table, 91.3 vs 89.5.
The Base model beats Gemma4-31B-Base on all 8 reported tasks. Examples include MMLU-Pro (66.9 vs 59.3) and GPQA (62.0 vs 41.5).
