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

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61.5 (C) and 61 (C). MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B leads on reach and risk. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 4969 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash C

Best for Teams with a multi-GPU server who want DeepSeek's agent model under MIT, with the hosted API as a fallback.

Ahead on

  • Agent interface, 75 against 70

Watch for

510.3 GB of files and no smaller build anywhere, so it won't fit the 107.4 GB reference machine

MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B C

Best for Agents that need a cheap local model to read screenshots, photos and short video on a phone, a laptop or beside a bigger model

Ahead on

  • Reach, 95 against 60
  • Risk, 55 against 50

Watch for

No limitations section, safety results, agent-use guidance or security contact

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 MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +35

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 60

Memory scores nothing, because the only build is DeepSeek's own at 510.3 GB, about 612 GB with the fifth added, and nobody's runtime library holds a smaller one at 4-bit or better. Four runtimes run it in a released version (5 each), vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23, which maps the V4.1 architecture name onto its V4 model, llama.cpp from b11870 (25 October 2026), which added the deepseek41 architecture and its converter, and Ollama 0.40.14, which builds llama.cpp b11963. Transformers 5.22.1 and LM Studio don't (0 each). The release itself is one quantised build, FP8 with FP4 experts (10). MIT with nothing added earns the full terms line (15), the repositories aren't gated (10), and Hugging Face maps three live inference providers for the update (5). 0 + 20 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 5 = 60.

MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 95

Memory 30, OpenBMB's own IQ4_XS GGUF is 0.64 GB, 1.54 GB with the 0.90 GB vision projector, and 1.54 GB × 1.2 = 1.9 GB, which fits 16 GB with room to spare. Runtimes 25, MiniCPMV4_7ForConditionalGeneration in vLLM's registry at v0.33.0, the minicpmv4_7 model type in SGLang's minicpmv.py at v0.5.23, the minicpmv4_7 model in Transformers at v5.22.2, a MiniCPM-V 4.7 guide and conversion code in llama.cpp at b12242, and an openbmb/minicpm-v4.7:1b tag in OpenBMB's namespace on Ollama, read as the 35B-A3B listing's is. Builds 15, OpenBMB publishes AWQ, GPTQ and int4 safetensors builds and a GGUF repository from IQ3_XS to F16, so quantised builds at two precisions or more. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata and as the LICENSE of OpenBMB's MiniCPM-V repository, an OSI licence. Download 10, gated is false on the main repository and on the GGUF, AWQ, GPTQ and int4 repositories, so the files download with no account or terms. Hosted 0, Hugging Face lists no inference provider for the model (an empty provider mapping on 10 November 2026), and no provider's own list was read. 30 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 95.

Risk MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +5

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 50

The weights are safetensors only, but 10 comes off because the card's way to build prompts is running encoding.py from the repository, since there's no Jinja template. The files sit in DeepSeek's own organisation with a hash for every file. Nothing is published on safety and there's no guidance for agent use, so those two lines score 0. The security programme earns 5 for the security@deepseek.com reporting address in DeepSeek's site footer, read as for DeepSeek-V3.2, with no security.txt and no public advisories. The MIT licence carries no use policy, threshold or revocation, so licence risk keeps all 15.

MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 55

File safety 25, safetensors in the main repository and the AWQ, GPTQ and int4 builds, GGUF in the GGUF build, with no .bin, .pt, .pth or .py files in the main repository. Provenance 15, files in the openbmb organisation that OpenBMB's GitHub README links to (10), with a SHA-256 for both large files in the main repository (5). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations or disclaimer section, and no prompt-injection guidance, instruction hierarchy or statement of trained refusals. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, field-of-use limit, threshold or change clause, nothing is added on the card, and the LICENSE in OpenBMB's GitHub repository resolved on 10 November 2026. Security programme 0, no SECURITY.md in OpenBMB/MiniCPM-V and no security.txt on openbmb.cn (both 404 on 10 November 2026), and no advisories found. 25 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 55.

Agent interface DeepSeek V4.1 Flash +5

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 75

There's no Jinja template in the 17 October repository, only code to run, so the template line gets 10. DeepSeek documents the DSML tool format both ways and ships its own parser in encoding.py and deepseek-recipe, but names no parser in a runtime (10, read as for DeepSeek-V3.2 and V4-Flash-0731), and one block can carry several calls (20). deepseek-recipe documents JSON Schema output via response_format (15). Thinking turns off in chat mode and takes an effort budget from 1 to 100, with reasoning returned in think tags (10). The 1M context was trained in (10).

MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 70

Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository, 7,249 characters. Tool-calling format 10, the card shows tools declared in the OpenAI tools array in a request to Transformers' server, but not how a call comes back, and names no parser for vLLM or SGLang. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over tool_calls, so it renders several calls in one assistant turn, and the card gives a tool-calling request as a supported use. Structured output 0, Neither JSON nor JSON Schema output is documented or claimed for the model on the card. Reasoning control 10, the card passes enable_thinking per request in its examples, the template has been off by default since 19 October 2026, and the GGUF repository keeps thinking builds in their own folder. Context 10, 262,144 tokens, max_position_embeddings in the text config. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 70.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runDeepSeek V4.1 FlashMiniCPM-V 4.7 1BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%256095MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +35
Risk20%205055MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +5
Agent interface10%107570DeepSeek V4.1 Flash +5
Documentation and upkeep10%104848even
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61.5/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactDeepSeek V4.1 FlashMiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorDeepSeekOpenBMB
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceMITApache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-10-172026-10-30
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviews2.8/5 (4)none

How the scores have moved

Verdicts

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

A large multimodal agent model with a 1M-token context, documented tool calls, JSON Schema output and a reasoning budget, under MIT. It needs about 612 GB of memory across several GPUs and runs in vLLM, SGLang and llama.cpp. The main risks are prompts built from DeepSeek's code instead of a template, no published safety results and no DeepSeek replies.

MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B

A vision-language cousin small enough for a phone, under plain Apache 2.0, that every runtime we count can load. The projector is bigger than the language model, so plan for about 2 GB. The card says nothing about limits or training data and doesn't show how a tool call comes back.

Before you call either

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

  1. DeepSeek's reference run is its inference folder, convert.py with --model-parallel 8 --expert-dtype fp4, then torchrun --nproc-per-node 8 generate.py --ckpt-path "$SAVE_PATH" --config config.json --interactive
  2. In vLLM 0.32.0 the parsers are named deepseek_v41 for both --tool-call-parser and --reasoning-parser. That's vLLM's naming, DeepSeek doesn't document a vLLM command
  3. In llama.cpp, convert with convert_hf_to_gguf.py from b11870 or later, which added the deepseek41 architecture on 25 October 2026; no GGUF is published by DeepSeek
  4. Build prompts with encoding.py or pip install deepseek-recipe, not the September repository's chat_template.jinja, which an open pull request says trails the 16 October encoding
  5. Tool calls come back in a DSML calls block with a space before calls, invoke and parameter, unlike V4
  6. Set reasoning_effort to 1 to 100, or low, high or max (50, 75, 100), in thinking mode only. Default is 75
  7. Sample at temperature 1.0 and top_p 1.0 and allow 256K or more output tokens, as the card recommends
  8. Without the hardware, call DeepSeek's API as deepseek-flash, which serves this exact update

MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B

  1. Start it with llama-server -hf openbmb/MiniCPM-V-4.7-1B-gguf:Q4_K_M --jinja, or ollama run openbmb/minicpm-v4.7:1b
  2. For image input in llama.cpp add mmproj-model-f16.gguf, or the smaller 4x projector
  3. The GGUF files at the repository root have thinking off. Use the files in thinking/ when you want the trace
  4. Use temperature 0.7, top_p 0.95 and top_k 100 in instruct mode, as the card recommends
  5. Check tool calls in your runtime first, since the card names no parser
  6. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61.5 (C) and 61 (C). MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B leads on reach and risk.

Other comparisons with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B

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.