Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Carbon-X vs Ripple-65B Preview
Carbon-X scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ripple-65B Preview's 53.3 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ripple-65B Preview leads on agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3674 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 45
- Risk, 65 against 55
- Documentation and upkeep, 72 against 49
Watch for
Not clinically validated and no wet-lab validation reported
Best for Teams with Blackwell GPUs or a DGX Spark who want an Apache 2.0 coding model to try for terminal and agentic coding work, and can run the publisher's code to serve it.
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 75 against 35
Watch for
No released runtime runs the architecture, so running it means Ricursive's Python in SGLang 0.5.19 or Transformers' remote code
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.
Reach Carbon-X +45
Carbon-X 90
Memory 30, the publisher's Q4_K_M GGUF is 9.6 GB, or 11.6 GB with a fifth added. Runtimes 20, released llama.cpp (from b11742, which added the DNA tokenizer), vLLM, SGLang and Transformers all run it, with no Ollama or LM Studio entry. Builds 15, Hugging Face publishes GGUFs at four precisions. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 on the model and on its Qwen3-14B base. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, no inference provider or Hugging Face API serves it.
Ripple-65B Preview 45
Memory 10 of 30, the smallest 4-bit build is Ricursive's NVFP4 at 57.2 GB, 68.7 GB with a fifth added, which is over 64 GB and fits our reference machine. Runtimes 0, no released runtime runs the ricursive architecture with its own code; Ricursive's SGLang plugin and Transformers' remote code don't count. Builds 10, one quantised precision (NVFP4) from Ricursive. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 with nothing added. Download 10, not gated. Hosted 0, Ricursive serves no API, Hugging Face maps no provider, Together AI's page says coming soon, and GMI Cloud's and OpenRouter's pages weren't read.
Agent interface Ripple-65B Preview +40
Carbon-X 35
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10, only the inherited template shows the format and no parser is named. Trained tool calling 0, nothing says it was trained to call tools. Structured output 0, not documented. Reasoning control 0, thinking can be switched off but was never trained, and the card asks you to keep it off. Context 5, 40,960 tokens from the base, though Hugging Face trained at 8,192 and under 16K. Most of what the card documents for agents is Carbon-X as a tool another model calls, which this checklist doesn't read.
Ripple-65B Preview 75
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository. Tool-calling format 25, Ricursive's server README says how tools are declared and calls come back, with the ripple parser in SGLang 0.5.19. Trained tool calling 20, one or more calls a turn and agentic-coding RL. Structured output 0, not documented. Reasoning control 0, the template has no thinking switch or effort levels. Context 10, long-context training at 2M-token sequences for a stated 1M.
Documentation and upkeep Carbon-X +23
Carbon-X 72
Model card 17, everything but a knowledge cut-off. Training data 15, the mid-training sources and shares are listed, the instruction and fine-tuning data aren't named, and there's no cut-off. Last change 20, 28 October 2026, when config.json, generation_config.json, tokenizer_config.json and tokenizer.py were fixed. Responsiveness 10, organisation members replied to 2 of the 4 questions so far. Version policy 5, a first release whose history was squashed without a note. File health 5, the card now sends llama.cpp users to the publisher's GGUF repository, but the tokenizer config's 131,072 still contradicts the card's 40,960. 17 + 15 + 20 + 10 + 5 + 5 = 72.
Ripple-65B Preview 49
Model card 14 of 20, no limitations and no knowledge cut-off. Training data 5, a general description with token counts and no cut-off. Last change 20, released today. Responsiveness 0, no discussions yet, read as none answered. Version policy 5, a first release, with the NVFP4 checkpoint replaced in place on release day under a commit note. File health 5, tokenizer_config.json carries a second, tool-less chat template and a 131,072-token limit against the card's 1M.
Risk Carbon-X +10
Carbon-X 65
File safety 15, safetensors and GGUF only, but the documented loading path runs the repository's tokenizer.py through trust_remote_code. Provenance 15, the files are in HuggingFaceBio, which Hugging Face's GitHub repository links, with a checksum on every file. Safety evaluation 10, Hugging Face reports its own dual-use check on sequence editing in the launch post, without numbers or a harness. Agent guidance 5, general cautions only. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0. Security programme 5, Hugging Face's security.txt is a reporting route, and public advisories couldn't be checked.
Ripple-65B Preview 55
File safety 15, safetensors only, less 10 because the documented way to run it loads Ricursive's Python. Provenance 15, the files are in the organisation ricursive.com links to, with a checksum on every file. Safety evaluation 10, Ricursive's own FORTRESS and StrongREJECT results. Agent guidance 0, nothing on prompt injection, refusals or safeguards. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Carbon-X | Ripple-65B Preview | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 45 | Carbon-X +45 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 65 | 55 | Carbon-X +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 35 | 75 | Ripple-65B Preview +40 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 72 | 49 | Carbon-X +23 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | D 53.3/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Carbon-X | Ripple-65B Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Hugging Face (HuggingFaceBio) | Ricursive Intelligence |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-28 | 2026-11-04 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | not read yet |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 3/5 (4) | none |
How the scores have moved
Ripple-65B Preview
No score change since it was listed.
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, isn't trained for tool calls or reasoning, and its Python tokenizer runs repository code.
Ripple-65B Preview
A dense 65B coding model from a new lab, pretrained from scratch and released today under Apache 2.0, that Ricursive says leads U.S. open-weight models on Terminal-Bench 2.1. Nobody has checked that yet, and the custom architecture runs only through Ricursive's own SGLang plugin on Blackwell GPUs, with a 57 GB NVFP4 build as the smallest.
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
Ripple-65B Preview
- Run Ricursive's launcher from inference/server with
uv run --script serve.pyon two B200 GPUs; it listens on 127.0.0.1:30000 with a 16K context by default - The launcher turns on
--reasoning-parser rippleand--tool-call-parser ripple; without them tool calls come back as raw text inside tool_call tags - For
tool_choice: "required"setstrict: trueandadditionalProperties: falseon each function, which the README says stopped extra argument fields - Leave room in
max_tokensfor reasoning as well as the answer, since thinking is always on - Use chat_template.jinja, not the template inside tokenizer_config.json, which has no tool support
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Carbon-X or Ripple-65B Preview?
Carbon-X scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ripple-65B Preview's 53.3 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ripple-65B Preview leads on agent interface.
Other comparisons with Carbon-X or Ripple-65B Preview
- Agents-A1-4B vs Carbon-X
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Carbon-X
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Carbon-X
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ripple-65B Preview
- BigBang-v1 vs Carbon-X
- BigBang-v1 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- 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-4.7-Flash
- 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 Kronos
- Carbon-X vs Laguna M.1
- Carbon-X vs Laguna S 2.1
- Carbon-X vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Carbon-X vs LBS-27B
- 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 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Carbon-X vs Mistral Large 4
- Carbon-X vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Carbon-X vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Carbon-X vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- 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)
- Carbon-X vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ripple-65B Preview
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ripple-65B Preview
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ripple-65B Preview
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ripple-65B Preview
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ripple-65B Preview
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ripple-65B Preview
- GLM-5.3 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ripple-65B Preview
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Hy3 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Inkling-Small vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Inkling vs Ripple-65B Preview
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Kimi K3 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Kolibri-1 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Kronos vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Laguna M.1 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- LBS-27B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ripple-65B Preview
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Mistral Large 4 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- occamy-1.0 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Recursive Flint vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ripple-65B Preview vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ripple-65B Preview vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ripple-65B Preview vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ripple-65B Preview vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ripple-65B Preview vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ripple-65B Preview vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/carbon-x-vs-ripple-65b-preview.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/carbon-x.json·/api/v1/tools/ripple-65b-preview.json - From a terminal
anchor compare carbon-x ripple-65b-preview(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "carbon-x", "b": "ripple-65b-preview"}at/mcp, no key