Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B

Agents-A1-4B and MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B leads on documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 4969 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

Agents-A1-4B C

Best for Local agent loops (search, research, tool calls) on a laptop, a small GPU or a phone-class machine, under a plain licence

No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.

Watch for

The base isn't declared, and the technical report doesn't cover the 4B

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B C

Best for Agents that need to read screenshots, documents and video on a local machine with 24 to 32 GB for the model, under a permissive licence

Ahead on

  • Documentation and upkeep, 68 against 43

Watch for

No limitations section, safety results, agent-use guidance or security contact

Why the edge

Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.

Documentation and upkeep MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +25

Agents-A1-4B 43

Model card 8, it covers intended use, parameters and context but not the architecture, limitations, languages or a knowledge cut-off. Training data 5, a general description with no cut-off. Last change 10, the files went up on 14 July 2026, 112 days before 3 November 2026, and the GitHub repository's last commit is 16 July. Responsiveness 10, InternScience answered one of the three discussions, unchanged on 3 November 2026. Version policy 5, a first release. File health 5, the files agree on the essentials, but the config declares a prediction layer that isn't shipped and the template carries a dated default prompt.

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 68

Model card 8, it covers intended use, architecture and parameters but not limitations, context length, languages or a knowledge cut-off. Training data 0, none described. Last change 20, a commit on 3 November 2026. Responsiveness 20, OpenBMB answered 8 of 12 discussions. Version policy 10, earlier versions keep their repositories and the changes are dated and described. File health 10, the files agree. 8 + 0 + 20 + 20 + 10 + 10 = 68.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runAgents-A1-4BMiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%259090even
Risk20%205555even
Agent interface10%107070even
Documentation and upkeep10%104368MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +25
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactAgents-A1-4BMiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorInternScience (Shanghai AI Laboratory)OpenBMB
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-07-142026-11-03
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviews3/5 (4)none

Verdicts

Agents-A1-4B

A small agent cousin for search, research and tool-calling loops, with vision and 262,144 tokens of context. It runs in about 4 GB from InternScience's Q4_K_M GGUF, in vLLM, SGLang, Transformers or llama.cpp. The main risks are an undeclared base, no safety results or agent guidance, and a template that adds its own dated system prompt when you send none.

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B

A vision-language cousin for images and video that fits a 24 to 32 GB machine from OpenBMB's own GGUF, under plain Apache 2.0, with a publisher that answers. The card says little about limits, training data or how tool calls come back, so test the tool format in your runtime before relying on it.

Before you call either

Agents-A1-4B

  1. Quickest start is llama-server -hf InternScience/Agents-A1-4B-Q4_K_M-GGUF --jinja, about 3.4 GB with the vision projector
  2. With vLLM use --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, as on the card, and add --language-model-only for text-only work
  3. Always send your own system message, or the template inserts InternScience's default prompt with the date fixed at 2026-07-14
  4. The card recommends temperature 0.85, top_p 0.95, top_k 20, min_p 0 and presence_penalty 1.1, and there is no generation_config.json to set them
  5. Thinking is on by default, send chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention
  6. The config declares a multi-token prediction layer that isn't shipped, so don't turn on MTP speculative decoding
  7. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B

  1. Start it with llama-server -hf openbmb/MiniCPM-V-4.7-35B-A3B-gguf:Q4_K_M --jinja, or ollama run openbmb/minicpm-v4.7:35b-a3b
  2. For image input in llama.cpp add mmproj-model-f16.gguf, or the 4x projector for more visual detail at a higher cost
  3. The GGUF files at the repository root have thinking off. Use the files in thinking/ when you want the trace
  4. With Transformers pass enable_thinking to apply_chat_template, and pass downsample_mode to both apply_chat_template and generate
  5. Use temperature 0.7, top_p 0.95 and top_k 100 in instruct mode, as the card recommends
  6. Check tool calls in your runtime first, since the card names no parser. The template uses the Qwen3.5 function-block format
  7. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Agents-A1-4B or MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B?

Agents-A1-4B and MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B leads on documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with Agents-A1-4B or MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.