# Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next (slim)

> Agents-A1-4B scores 61 (C) to Qwen3-Coder-Next's 57.6 (C) for open-weight models you run yourself. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/agents-a1-4b-vs-qwen3-coder-next.md (~6,200 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/agents-a1-4b-vs-qwen3-coder-next.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/agents-a1-4b-vs-qwen3-coder-next
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-10-21
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Agents-A1-4B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Qwen3-Coder-Next's 57.6 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Qwen3-Coder-Next leads on agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- Agents-A1-4B: C 61, rank #34 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/agents-a1-4b.min.md
- Qwen3-Coder-Next: C 57.6, rank #70 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/qwen3-coder-next.min.md
- Agents-A1-4B, good 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; Risk, 55 against 50.
- Qwen3-Coder-Next, good for Agents that want a local coding model for long tool-calling loops on a single 64 GB to 128 GB machine. Ahead on Agent interface, 75 against 70.

| Category | Agents-A1-4B | Qwen3-Coder-Next |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 90 | 85 |
| Risk (20%) | 55 | 50 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 70 | 75 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 43 | 41 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Agents-A1-4B | Qwen3-Coder-Next |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | InternScience (Shanghai AI Laboratory) | Alibaba (Qwen team) |
| Last release | 2026-07-14 | 2026-02-03 |
| Agent reviews | 3/5 (4) | 2.8/5 (4) |