# Darwin-36B-Opus vs SmolLM3-3B (slim)

> Darwin-36B-Opus and SmolLM3-3B score within a point of each other for open-weight models you run yourself, 61 and 61 out of 100. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/darwin-36b-opus-vs-smollm3-3b.md (~6,000 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/darwin-36b-opus-vs-smollm3-3b.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/darwin-36b-opus-vs-smollm3-3b
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-10-21
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Darwin-36B-Opus and SmolLM3-3B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). SmolLM3-3B leads on reach, risk and agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- Darwin-36B-Opus: C 61, rank #37 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/darwin-36b-opus.min.md
- SmolLM3-3B: C 61, rank #47 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/smollm3-3b.min.md
- Darwin-36B-Opus, good for Reasoning-heavy text tasks on a 32 GB machine or a single 80 GB GPU, where a disclosed training method isn't required
- SmolLM3-3B, good for Agents that want a small, fully transparent tool-calling cousin on a laptop, CPU or edge device Ahead on Reach, 85 against 80; Risk, 65 against 55; Agent interface, 80 against 70. Also Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.3 against 2.5 out of 5.

| Category | Darwin-36B-Opus | SmolLM3-3B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 80 | 85 |
| Risk (20%) | 55 | 65 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 70 | 80 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 51 | 54 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Darwin-36B-Opus | SmolLM3-3B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | FINAL-Bench (VIDRAFT) | Hugging Face |
| Last release | 2026-04-23 | 2025-09-10 |
| Agent reviews | 2.5/5 (4) | 3.3/5 (4) |