Which local AI agent runtime should you pick?

For local AI agents, the runtime choice really comes down to three lanes. Reach for Ollama to experiment fast on your own, llama.cpp to embed deep on a device, and vLLM when you run many agents at once in production — most other decisions fall out of these three.

In one line: runtimes split along latency, memory, and how tool calls are wired. Ollama for solo experiments, llama.cpp for edge and on-device, vLLM for production multi-agent.

First, let's define "runtime." A runtime is the program that actually executes the model. Model files (the weights) are just a pile of numbers on their own; to turn an input into output tokens you need an engine that loads those weights into memory and runs the math. If the model is the blueprint, the runtime is the engine that actually drives. The same model, on a different engine, can differ sharply in speed, memory use, and how many requests it can handle at once.

Why run locally at all?#

Calling a cloud API is convenient, but an agent doesn't answer once and stop — it calls a tool, feeds the result back into the model, and repeats that round-trip dozens of times per task. When every round-trip carries network latency, the whole thing feels sluggish. Local keeps that round-trip inside the machine, so tool-call latency is low, sensitive context (internal docs, personal data) never leaves the device, and token cost trends to zero.

It isn't free, though. The model-size and VRAM constraints the cloud used to absorb are now yours. A 7–8B model quantized to 4-bit needs roughly 5–6GB of VRAM, and that requirement grows almost linearly as parameters scale up. "So can't I run big models?" You can push further with quantization and CPU offloading — but you trade speed for it. That balance is the foundation of the runtime decision.

So which one should you pick?#

The decision starts with "what are you trying to do?" The flow below sums up the three lanes at a glance.

Ollama — instant setup. One line, ollama run, pulls a model and starts a chat. Swapping and managing models is the easiest here. The trade-off is limited concurrency and tuning, so heavy multi-agent loads hit a bottleneck. Best for tinkering fast on your own.

llama.cpp — light and flexible. Written in C/C++, it runs on CPU alone and offloads flexibly to GPU. Great for embedding deep into a device like a Raspberry Pi or laptop. The trade-off is you wire the server and tool calls yourself. Best for edge and on-device.

vLLM — high throughput. PagedAttention and continuous batching push many requests together for high throughput. The trade-off is heavy VRAM needs and a heavier setup. Best for production that runs many agents at once.

Local AI runtimes compared (2026) · columns: Runtime, Strength, Weakness, Best for · 출처 Hax hax.moche.ai/en/p/852?ref=ai_answer

Runtime | Strength | Weakness | Best for
Ollama | Instant setup, easy model management | Limited concurrency and tuning | Solo experiments
llama.cpp | Lightweight, flexible CPU/GPU, embeddable | More wiring required | Edge and on-device
vLLM | High throughput, continuous batching | Heavy VRAM needs | Production multi-agent

목차

How much does latency actually drop?

How far should you trust benchmarks?

Get started in 5 minutes

측정 방법론 · bench_harness.probe_llm_bench (unified-api 실측, 3회 중앙값)

표본

2 measured metrics (Hax /data curated)

측정 환경

bench_harness.probe_llm_bench (unified-api 실측

수집일

2026-07-04

방법

3회 중앙값)

How much does latency actually drop?#

Let's put numbers on it. A cloud round-trip often adds 200–800ms of network latency per tool call. If an agent calls tools 10 times in one task, that alone is 2–8 seconds of pure waiting. Local removes that network leg, dropping the round-trip to a few milliseconds.

Local isn't automatically faster, of course. Model inference itself (token generation) can be slow on local depending on the hardware. So "latency drops" strictly means the network round-trip cost. That's where a common misconception splits: local isn't blanket-faster — it especially wins on agent workloads with frequent tool-call round-trips.

How far should you trust benchmarks?#

Numbers in runtime comparison posts and tweets are hard to trust as-is because the measurement conditions differ. The minimum bar for a meaningful comparison is same input, same seed, same measurement point. Four things in particular must match: (1) prompt and context length, (2) quantization method (even the same 4-bit differs by method), (3) batch size, and (4) whether the metric is time-to-first-token (TTFT) or tokens per second (throughput). If those four differ, a claim like "vLLM is 3x faster" is really comparing two different experiments.

Get started in 5 minutes#

Experiment solo: install Ollama, then ollama run llama3.1:8b to chat right away.

Embed on a device: build llama.cpp and expose an OpenAI-compatible endpoint with llama-server.

Production multi-agent: launch vLLM with python -m vllm.entrypoints.openai.api_server.

All three expose an OpenAI-compatible API, so your agent code just swaps the base URL and keeps working. That means starting on Ollama today won't force an application rewrite when you later move to vLLM.

The one line to remember: as the workload grows, move Ollama → llama.cpp → vLLM — but always confirm benchmarks by reproducing them under identical conditions.

Note: this article reflects the stable release of each runtime as of July 2026. vLLM and llama.cpp ship often and their numbers shift, so we refresh the figures roughly every six months.