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

Darwin-36B-Opus vs occamy-1.0

Darwin-36B-Opus and occamy-1.0 score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). occamy-1.0 leads on reach 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 2870 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

Darwin-36B-Opus C

Best for Reasoning-heavy text tasks on a 32 GB machine or a single 80 GB GPU, where a disclosed training method isn't required

No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.

Watch for

The merge method is proprietary and the current weights include an undescribed targeted refinement

occamy-1.0 C

Best for Agents that want an Apache 2.0 mixture-of-experts model tuned for long tool-using tasks on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac.

Ahead on

  • Reach, 85 against 80
  • Documentation and upkeep, 74 against 51

Also in its favour

  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.0 against 2.5 out of 5

Watch for

No safety results, prompt-injection guidance or security contact

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runDarwin-36B-Opusoccamy-1.0Edge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258085occamy-1.0 +5
Risk20%205555even
Agent interface10%107070even
Documentation and upkeep10%105174occamy-1.0 +23
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactDarwin-36B-Opusoccamy-1.0
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorFINAL-Bench (VIDRAFT)Accio (Accio-Lab)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-04-232026-10-02
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno 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 reviews2.5/5 (4)3/5 (4)

Verdicts

Darwin-36B-Opus

A text-only reasoning cousin merged from Qwen3.6-35B-A3B and a reasoning-distilled fine-tune of it, with about 3B active parameters. It needs 32 GB for the publisher's 4-bit GGUF or about 83 GB in BF16, and runs in vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp. The main risks are an undisclosed merge method, a card that disagrees with its files, and no safety results.

occamy-1.0

A Qwen3.6-35B-A3B fine-tuned for long agent work with tools, files and code, under plain Apache 2.0, and Accio's 4-bit builds run in about 23 GB. The main gaps are no safety results, agent guidance or security contact, and every benchmark figure is Accio's own.

Before you call either

Darwin-36B-Opus

  1. Quickest start is llama-server -hf FINAL-Bench/POCKET-35B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja, about 21 GB of files
  2. On the reference machine BF16 fits, vllm serve FINAL-Bench/Darwin-36B-Opus --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, the parsers for Qwen3.6's format
  3. Thinking is on by default, send chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention
  4. The card suggests temperature 0.6 to 0.7 and at least 5,120 new tokens for its think traces
  5. generation_config.json stops only on the end-of-text token, so add <|im_end|> as a stop token if a runtime keeps generating after the turn ends
  6. Text only, the vision encoder of Qwen3.6-35B-A3B isn't in these files
  7. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

occamy-1.0

  1. Serve with --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder on vLLM 0.19.0 or SGLang 0.5.10 and later
  2. BF16 is 70.2 GB, so on a 128 GB machine run it without the card's 8-way tensor parallelism
  3. Keep the whole assistant message, reasoning and tool calls included, in later turns, as the card says
  4. Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95, top_k 20 and presence_penalty 1.5
  5. With the GGUFs, NFC-normalise input text and read TOKENIZER.md, since the files store qwen2 pre-tokenizer metadata
  6. The base's MTP layer isn't in this checkpoint, Accio-Lab/occamy-1.0-MTP is an experimental separate head

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Darwin-36B-Opus or occamy-1.0?

Darwin-36B-Opus and occamy-1.0 score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). occamy-1.0 leads on reach and documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with Darwin-36B-Opus or occamy-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.