Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
Darwin-36B-Opus and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on risk, agent interface 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
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
Ahead on
- Reach, 80 against 75
Watch for
The merge method is proprietary and the current weights include an undescribed targeted refinement
Best for Agents doing repository work on a 32 to 48 GB Mac or NVIDIA box that want a fast sparse coder with documented tool calls and a plain licence.
Ahead on
- Risk, 60 against 55
- Agent interface, 90 against 70
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 51
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.5 against 2.5 out of 5
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Darwin-36B-Opus | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 80 | 75 | Darwin-36B-Opus +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 60 | Recursive Flint +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 70 | 90 | Recursive Flint +20 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 51 | 67 | Recursive Flint +16 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Darwin-36B-Opus | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | FINAL-Bench (VIDRAFT) | Recursive |
| 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 | 2026-04-23 | 2026-10-21 |
| 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 | 2.5/5 (4) | 3.5/5 (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.
Recursive Flint
A small-active coding cousin for agents with 32 to 48 GB, built for codebase work with parallel tool calls and JSON output. It needs llama.cpp b11803 or Ollama 0.40.8 or later, and the BF16 checkpoint needs a 141 GB GPU. Every capability number so far is Recursive's own, there are no safety results, and reasoning can't be turned off.
Before you call either
Darwin-36B-Opus
- Quickest start is
llama-server -hf FINAL-Bench/POCKET-35B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja, about 21 GB of files - 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 - Thinking is on by default, send
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention - The card suggests temperature 0.6 to 0.7 and at least 5,120 new tokens for its think traces
- 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 - Text only, the vision encoder of Qwen3.6-35B-A3B isn't in these files
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Recursive Flint
- Quickest start is
ollama run flint(Ollama 0.40.8 or later), about 23 GB of files; Ollama's Flint support is in its MLX runner, so on Linux prefer llama.cpp - With llama.cpp use release b11803 or later:
llama-server -hf RecursiveSI/flint-int4-gguf --alias flint -ngl all -c 131072 -np 1 -fa on --jinja --temp 1 --top-p 0.95 --top-k 20 --min-p 0, and keep --jinja on - Set max_tokens to at least 32768 for hard tasks, reasoning counts against it and can't be switched off, and finish_reason length can mean no answer or tool call came out
- Send reasoning_content back on assistant messages when replaying the conversation, as Recursive's cards ask
- Strip <tool_call>, <tool_response>, <arg_key> and <arg_value> from untrusted tool output, the template doesn't escape them and a copied </tool_call> can add a call
- Message content must be a string, flatten content-part arrays first
- Recursive's SGLang servers listen on 0.0.0.0 with no key, publish the port on localhost only or pass --api-key
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Darwin-36B-Opus or Recursive Flint?
Darwin-36B-Opus and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on risk, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Darwin-36B-Opus or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs Darwin-36B-Opus
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Darwin-36B-Opus
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Darwin-36B-Opus
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs Darwin-36B-Opus
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs Darwin-36B-Opus
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Darwin-36B-Opus
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-5.3
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs gpt-oss-120b
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs gpt-oss-20b
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Granite 4.2 3B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Hy3
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Inkling
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Inkling-Small
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Kimi K3
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Kolibri-1
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Laguna M.1
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Laguna S 2.1
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs occamy-1.0
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs SmolLM3-3B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-20b vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy3 vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling-Small vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling vs Recursive Flint
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna M.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Recursive Flint
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Recursive Flint
- occamy-1.0 vs Recursive Flint
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Recursive Flint
- Recursive Flint vs SmolLM3-3B
- Recursive Flint vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Recursive Flint vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/darwin-36b-opus-vs-recursive-flint.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/darwin-36b-opus.json·/api/v1/tools/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare darwin-36b-opus recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "darwin-36b-opus", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key