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

Agents-A1-4B vs North Mini Code 1.0

Agents-A1-4B and North Mini Code 1.0 score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). North Mini Code 1.0 leads on risk and agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 6359 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

Ahead on

  • Reach, 90 against 85
  • Documentation and upkeep, 43 against 36

Watch for

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

North Mini Code 1.0 C

Best for Developers who want a coding agent on their own GPU with a permissive licence

Ahead on

  • Risk, 60 against 55
  • Agent interface, 85 against 70

Watch for

No limitations, safety results, languages or data description on the card

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.

Agent interface North Mini Code 1.0 +15

Agents-A1-4B 70

Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10, the card names the qwen3_coder parser but the format is only in the template. Trained tool calling 20, the card says it was trained for tool use and the template renders several calls in one turn. Structured output 0. Reasoning control 10, the template turns thinking off per request and the card's reasoning parser returns it apart from the answer. Context 10, 262,144 tokens.

North Mini Code 1.0 85

Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (12,397 characters). Tool-calling format 25, the card documents how tools are declared (JSON schema through the chat template), how the call and its thinking go back into the history and how results are appended, and names the cohere_command4 tool-call parser for vLLM, which released vLLM has. Trained tool calling 20, the card says the model was specifically trained with tool-use capabilities for agentic coding, with reinforcement learning on verifiable tasks, and the template renders every call in a turn with thinking between them. Structured output 0, JSON schema is for describing tools. Reasoning control 10, the template has a reasoning_effort setting, and the card names the cohere_command4 reasoning parser, which returns thinking apart from the answer. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, with 64K of output, and 500,000 positions in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.

Documentation and upkeep Agents-A1-4B +7

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.

North Mini Code 1.0 36

Model card 11, Intended use, the architecture, the parameters and the context are on the card. Training data 0, the card gives the training method and nothing about the data. Last change 10, the main repository last changed on 15 June 2026 (outdated chat templates removed), 148 days before this check, and the draft model's repository on 29 July, 104 days. Responsiveness 0, none of the 11 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (7 June to 6 November 2026) has a reply from a CohereLabs member, counted on 10 November by author flags and dates with a script, text not read. Version policy 5, A first release, with each build in its own repository. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture, and the June commit that removed broken templates says so. 11 + 0 + 10 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 36.

Reach Agents-A1-4B +5

Agents-A1-4B 90

Memory 30, InternScience's Q4_K_M GGUF with its vision projector is 3.4 GB and needs about 4.1 GB with the fifth added. Runtimes 20, the Qwen3.5 architecture runs in released vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp, while Ollama's and LM Studio's entries are the base's, not this model's. Builds 15, InternScience publishes FP8 and three GGUF precisions. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 with nothing added. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, one inference provider serves it and the line needs two.

North Mini Code 1.0 85

Memory 25, the smallest build from Cohere is the w4a16 repository, 19.38 GB, and 19.38 GB × 1.2 = 23.3 GB, within 24 GB. Unsloth's GGUF isn't read for this line. Runtimes 20, Released vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23 and Transformers 5.22.2 have the cohere2_moe model, and llama.cpp b12242 has the cohere2moe architecture. Builds 15, Quantised builds from Cohere at two precisions, FP8 and 4-bit weights (w4a16), each in its own repository. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the metadata and on the card, an OSI licence with nothing added. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its builds on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps no inference provider to it. 25 + 20 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 85.

Risk North Mini Code 1.0 +5

Agents-A1-4B 55

File safety 25, safetensors and GGUF only and nothing from the repository runs. Provenance 15, the files are in the InternScience organisation its GitHub repository links to, with a SHA-256 for every weight file. Safety evaluation 0 and agent guidance 0, nothing published. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 through the chain from Qwen3.5-4B with no conditions added. Security programme 0, no policy, contact or security.txt.

North Mini Code 1.0 60

File safety 25, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files and no Python in the repository. Provenance 15, the files sit in Cohere's verified CohereLabs organisation, which cohere.com links to per our other Cohere listings (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations or safety section, and nothing on prompt injection, instruction priority or what the model refuses. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, threshold or change clause. Security programme 5, Cohere's trust centre holds a responsible disclosure policy with a bug bounty, as recorded on our Cohere listings (5). 25 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 5 = 60.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runAgents-A1-4BNorth Mini Code 1.0Edge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%259085Agents-A1-4B +5
Risk20%205560North Mini Code 1.0 +5
Agent interface10%107085North Mini Code 1.0 +15
Documentation and upkeep10%104336Agents-A1-4B +7
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactAgents-A1-4BNorth Mini Code 1.0
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorInternScience (Shanghai AI Laboratory)Cohere
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-07-142026-07-29
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.

North Mini Code 1.0

A coding agent model that fits one 24 GB GPU at 4 bits, trained for tool use, with a 256K context, Apache 2.0 and four released runtimes. It's a research release and reads like one: nothing on limitations, safety or data, the card's run instructions are out of date, and Cohere hasn't answered a question on the repository.

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

North Mini Code 1.0

  1. Serve it with vLLM 0.33.0 or later and --tool-call-parser cohere_command4 --reasoning-parser cohere_command4 --enable-auto-tool-choice, with cohere_melody installed
  2. Pass the model's thinking back with its tool calls on every turn. The card says results drop without it
  3. Describe tools in JSON schema and append tool results as a dictionary with the tool role
  4. Use temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95
  5. For llama.cpp the GGUF files are Unsloth's or bartowski's conversions, not Cohere's
  6. It's text only. Don't send images

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Agents-A1-4B or North Mini Code 1.0?

Agents-A1-4B and North Mini Code 1.0 score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). North Mini Code 1.0 leads on risk and agent interface.

Other comparisons with Agents-A1-4B or North Mini Code 1.0

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.