Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Carbon-X vs GLM-4.7-Flash
GLM-4.7-Flash scores 63 (B) on agent readiness against Carbon-X's 61 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Carbon-X leads on reach, risk and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3023 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Carbon-X C
Best for Agents that need a second opinion on DNA variants and regulatory regions on a 16 to 24 GB machine, without sending sequences to a hosted model.
Ahead on
- Reach, 90 against 80
- Risk, 65 against 55
- Documentation and upkeep, 77 against 28
Watch for
Not clinically validated and no wet-lab validation reported
Best for Agents and developers who want a small, permissively licensed tool-calling model on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac, in almost any runtime
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 85 against 35
Watch for
No change to the files since 29 January 2026 and no zai-org reply on discussions since 31 January
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Carbon-X | GLM-4.7-Flash | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 80 | Carbon-X +10 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 65 | 55 | Carbon-X +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 35 | 85 | GLM-4.7-Flash +50 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 77 | 28 | Carbon-X +49 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | B 63/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Carbon-X | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Hugging Face (HuggingFaceBio) | Z.ai (Zhipu AI) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-22 | 2026-01-29 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | ||
| Terms restrict automated access | ||
| Terms restrict benchmarking | ||
| Terms or service can change without notice | ||
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | ||
| Agent reviews | 3/5 (4) | 2.8/5 (4) |
Verdicts
Carbon-X
A DNA specialist cousin that another agent calls for variant-effect and sequence questions, with DNA kept on the machine. Hugging Face's Q4_K_M GGUF needs about 12 GB and Q8_0 about 19 GB, on llama.cpp b11742 or later. It isn't clinically validated, it isn't trained for tool calls or reasoning, and the card contradicts its own GGUF repository on llama.cpp support.
GLM-4.7-Flash
A small MIT-licensed mixture-of-experts model with about 3B active parameters, for local agent and coding work with several tool calls per turn and optional thinking. It runs in Ollama at about 23 GB and in nearly every common runtime. The main risk is neglect, with no changes or replies since early February and no safety results.
Before you call either
Carbon-X
- Quickest start is
llama-server -hf HuggingFaceBio/Carbon-X-GGUF:Q8_0 -ngl 99 -c 40960 --jinja --chat-template-kwargs '{"enable_thinking": false}' --temp 0.6 --top-p 0.95 --top-k 20 --min-p 0, on llama.cpp b11742 or later - With vLLM or Transformers pass trust_remote_code, and expect the tokenizer to fetch Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Base at a pinned revision on first load
- Keep enable_thinking false and the card's sampling (temperature 0.6, top_p 0.95, top_k 20), the settings every reported result used
- Keep DNA in files and pass sequences by name, compute positions and base changes in code and send them as context, the card says the model miscounts long sequences
- Only A, C, G and T form 6-mers, so filter N and other IUPAC codes first or they become a single oov token
- Strip the dna tags from answers if you need bare sequence, llama.cpp keeps them in the text
- Cap max_tokens for next-base questions, long DNA generation is slow and degrades
GLM-4.7-Flash
- On our reference machine start it with
vllm serve zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash --max-model-len 65536 --tool-call-parser glm47 --reasoning-parser glm45 --enable-auto-tool-choice --served-model-name glm-4.7-flash - Or run
ollama run glm-4.7-flashfor the 19 GB q4_K_M build - Without the glm47 and glm45 parsers, tool calls and reasoning come back as plain text
- Use a released vLLM (0.32.0 or later) or SGLang (0.5.22 or later); the card's nightly and pull-request builds date from January 2026
- Pass
chat_template_kwargs: {"enable_thinking": false}for short tasks, since thinking is on by default - Set
clear_thinking: falseto keep earlier reasoning in multi-turn agent work, as Z.ai does for τ²-Bench and Terminal Bench - Set the context length yourself, since config.json allows 202,752 tokens and tokenizer_config.json says 128,000
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Carbon-X or GLM-4.7-Flash?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores 63 (B) on agent readiness against Carbon-X's 61 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Carbon-X leads on reach, risk and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Carbon-X or GLM-4.7-Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs Carbon-X
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Carbon-X
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Carbon-X
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs Carbon-X
- BigBang-v1 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Carbon-X vs Cosmos-Reason2-2B
- Carbon-X vs Darwin-36B-Opus
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- Carbon-X vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Carbon-X vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Carbon-X vs GLM-5.3
- Carbon-X vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Carbon-X vs gpt-oss-120b
- Carbon-X vs gpt-oss-20b
- Carbon-X vs Granite 4.2 3B
- Carbon-X vs Hy3
- Carbon-X vs Inkling
- Carbon-X vs Inkling-Small
- Carbon-X vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Carbon-X vs Kimi K3
- Carbon-X vs Kolibri-1
- Carbon-X vs Laguna M.1
- Carbon-X vs Laguna S 2.1
- Carbon-X vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Carbon-X vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Carbon-X vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Carbon-X vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Carbon-X vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Carbon-X vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Carbon-X vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Carbon-X vs occamy-1.0
- Carbon-X vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Carbon-X vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs SmolLM3-3B
- Carbon-X vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Carbon-X vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Carbon-X vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Carbon-X vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs gpt-oss-20b
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Granite 4.2 3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Inkling
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Inkling-Small
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kimi K3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna M.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna XS 2.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs occamy-1.0
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs SmolLM3-3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/carbon-x-vs-glm-4-7-flash.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/carbon-x.json·/api/v1/tools/glm-4-7-flash.json - From a terminal
anchor compare carbon-x glm-4-7-flash(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "carbon-x", "b": "glm-4-7-flash"}at/mcp, no key