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

Cola2 vs North Mini Code 1.0

North Mini Code 1.0 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Cola2's 33.9 (F), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Cola2 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 6359 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

Cola2 F

Best for Researchers working on latent or diffusion language models who want a checkpoint to study

Ahead on

  • Documentation and upkeep, 58 against 36

Watch for

No licence stated for the weights

North Mini Code 1.0 C

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

Ahead on

  • Reach, 85 against 25
  • Risk, 60 against 40
  • Agent interface, 85 against 20

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 +65

Cola2 20

Chat template 20, A chat template in tokenizer_config.json (4,116 characters), which came with the Qwen3 tokenizer. Tool-calling format 0, none. Trained tool calling 0, not trained for tool calling. Structured output 0, Nothing about JSON or schema-constrained output. Reasoning control 0, no reasoning mode. Context 0, no context length is stated. 20 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 20.

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.

Reach North Mini Code 1.0 +60

Cola2 25

Memory 15, the only build is the F32 safetensors set, 35.07 GB, and 35.07 GB × 1.2 = 42.1 GB, within 64 GB. Loaded as BF16, as the card's example does, it needs about half, but the line reads the file size. Runtimes 0, none of the six runs it in a released version. Builds 0, one set of weights and no quantised build. Terms 0, no licence for the weights. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false 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, and nothing names an API that serves it. 15 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 10 + 0 = 25.

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.

Documentation and upkeep Cola2 +22

Cola2 58

Model card 8, Intended use and limitations (the out-of-scope list, and the unconverged latent model) and the architecture are on the card and the GitHub model card it links. Training data 15, the GitHub model card names the source (OLMo 2 pretraining text, retokenised) and the mix by stage with token counts, 346.03B in all. Last change 20, All six commits are from 6 November 2026, four days before this check, the last one updating a checksum in the README. Responsiveness 0, no discussions on the repository, so nobody has asked anything yet and the line reads as none answered, as settled in calibration. Version policy 5, A first release. File health 10, Config, files and card agree: F32 weights, a float32 config and a card that says to load them as bfloat16, with SHA256SUMS to check the download. 8 + 15 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 58.

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.

Risk North Mini Code 1.0 +20

Cola2 40

File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the ByteDance-Seed organisation, which the ByteDance-Seed GitHub repository for the model links to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results. Agent guidance 5, General cautions in the GitHub model card: not instruction-tuned or safety-aligned, not for use as an assistant, for facts or advice, or for high-impact decisions about people. Licence risk 0, With no licence for the weights there is nothing to hold ByteDance to. Security programme 5, the GitHub repository's SECURITY.md sends reports to ByteDance's security centre and says how they're assessed (5). 15 + 15 + 0 + 5 + 0 + 5 = 40.

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 runCola2North Mini Code 1.0Edge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%252585North Mini Code 1.0 +60
Risk20%204060North Mini Code 1.0 +20
Agent interface10%102085North Mini Code 1.0 +65
Documentation and upkeep10%105836Cola2 +22
Negative events≤1500
TotalF 33.9/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactCola2North Mini Code 1.0
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorByteDance (Seed)Cohere
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceNone stated for the weights (the code is Apache 2.0)Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-11-062026-07-29
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked

Verdicts

Cola2

A research release, and an honest one: ByteDance Seed says it's a base model with an unconverged latent stage, scoring below Llama-3-8B on its own table. It's here for people studying continuous-latent generation. Agents can't use it as a model: 32-token completions, no chat or tools, the repository's own code to load it, and no licence on the weights.

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

Cola2

  1. Don't plan to use this as your model. It completes short prompts and wasn't tuned to follow instructions
  2. Don't use it commercially on the strength of this listing. The weights have no stated licence
  3. If you study it, read modeling_cola2.py first: trust_remote_code runs it
  4. Pin Transformers below 5, as the card requires
  5. Pass a seeded torch.Generator to generate(). Output varies between runs even with greedy decoding
  6. Check the download with sha256sum -c SHA256SUMS

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, Cola2 or North Mini Code 1.0?

North Mini Code 1.0 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Cola2's 33.9 (F), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Cola2 leads on documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with Cola2 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.