Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Ornith-1.5-122B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61.5 (C) and 61 (C). Ornith-1.5-122B leads on reach and agent interface. 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
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
- Documentation and upkeep, 48 against 36
Watch for
510.3 GB of files and no smaller build anywhere, so it won't fit the 107.4 GB reference machine
Best for Local coding and terminal agents on a 128 GB unified-memory machine or a 96 GB GPU setup, where a clear licence file and an answering publisher aren't required
Ahead on
- Reach, 75 against 60
- Agent interface, 85 against 75
Watch for
No LICENSE file though the card links one, and no notice for the Apache 2.0 Qwen3.5 and Gemma 4 work it builds on
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 Ornith-1.5-122B +15
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.
Ornith-1.5-122B 75
Memory 10, since Ornith's own MLX 4-bit build is 69.7 GB and needs about 83.6 GB with the fifth added, over 64 GB and inside the reference machine's 107.4 GB, as do its Q4_K_M GGUF, its NVFP4 build and Ollama's build. Runtimes 25, the most the line gives, from vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23, Transformers 5.22.2, llama.cpp's qwen35moe architecture, Ollama's library and LM Studio's catalogue for the qwen35moe architecture. Builds 15, Ornith publishes FP8, NVFP4, GGUF and MLX at several precisions. Terms 15, MIT as named in the card's metadata, with nothing added, read by its terms though the repository has no licence file. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, Ornith runs no API and no inference provider serves it. 10 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 75.
Documentation and upkeep DeepSeek V4.1 Flash +12
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 48
The cards cover architecture, parameters and context but not intended use, limitations, languages or a cut-off, so 8. Training data is a general description with no cut-off, which caps it at 5. The files changed on 16 and 17 October and DeepSeek's deepseek-recipe 0.2.0 changed the V4.1 prompt encoding on 20 October, inside 30 days (20). None of the 40 most recent questions across both repositories had a DeepSeek reply (0). Every release keeps its own repository and the update names what it replaces (10). File health loses 5 for an open, unanswered pull request saying the September template trails the encoding changes. 8 + 5 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 5 = 48.
Ornith-1.5-122B 36
Model card 11, it covers intended use, architecture, parameters and context but not limitations, languages or a knowledge cut-off. Training data 5, a description of the method with no data or cut-off. Last change 20, a folder upload to the MLX builds on 24 October 2026, 17 days ago. Responsiveness 0, Ornith answered none of the 5 questions and reports. Version policy 0, the MLX builds were uploaded a second time four days after the first with no note. File health 0, the card links a missing LICENSE, states hardware its own files don't fit and names a variant that doesn't exist, and the two chat templates differ. 11 + 5 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 36.
Agent interface Ornith-1.5-122B +10
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).
Ornith-1.5-122B 85
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 25, the card shows how tools go in and how calls come back and names the parser for vLLM and SGLang. Trained tool calling 20, Ornith trains it on agent tasks and the template renders several calls in one turn. Structured output 0, not documented or claimed. Reasoning control 10, Ornith's template reads enable_thinking per request and the card says the reasoning comes back in reasoning_content, though the card doesn't name the switch. Context 10, 262,144 tokens native.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Ornith-1.5-122B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 75 | Ornith-1.5-122B +15 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 50 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 85 | Ornith-1.5-122B +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 48 | 36 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash +12 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61.5/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Ornith-1.5-122B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | DeepSeek | Ornith |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-17 | 2026-10-24 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | none |
How the scores have moved
Ornith-1.5-122B
No score change since it was listed.
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.
Ornith-1.5-122B
The largest Ornith that fits a 128 GB machine, a coding and terminal-agent cousin on Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's architecture with XML tool calls and 262,144 tokens of context. Its 4-bit builds need 84 to 93 GB. The main risk is an absent publisher, with no licence file, safety results or replies, and a card that misstates the hardware.
Before you call either
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Tool calls come back in a DSML calls block with a space before calls, invoke and parameter, unlike V4
- Set reasoning_effort to 1 to 100, or low, high or max (50, 75, 100), in thinking mode only. Default is 75
- Sample at temperature 1.0 and top_p 1.0 and allow 256K or more output tokens, as the card recommends
- Without the hardware, call DeepSeek's API as deepseek-flash, which serves this exact update
Ornith-1.5-122B
- Start it with
ollama run ornith-1.5:122b-q4_K_M, orllama-server -hf ornith-ai/Ornith-1.5-122B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja -c 262144 - Budget about 92 GB for the Q4_K_M GGUF with a working context, and less context if the machine has under 100 GB for the model
- In vLLM pass
--enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_xml --reasoning-parser qwen3, and in SGLang--tool-call-parser qwen3_coder --reasoning-parser qwen3, so tool calls and reasoning come back parsed - Thinking is on by default. Send
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention - Pin which template your runtime loads, since chat_template.jinja keeps earlier reasoning and the tokenizer_config.json template drops it
- Use temperature 0.6, top_p 0.95, top_k 20 for coding and temperature 1.0 for general tasks, as the card recommends
- Add mmproj-Ornith-1.5-122B-BF16.gguf (0.9 GB) for image input in llama.cpp, and validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Ornith-1.5-122B?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Ornith-1.5-122B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61.5 (C) and 61 (C). Ornith-1.5-122B leads on reach and agent interface.
Other comparisons with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Ornith-1.5-122B
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Arete-27B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Arete-27B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- BigBang-v1 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.5-Air
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs gpt-oss-20b
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Granite 4.2 30B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Granite 4.2 3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Granite 4.2 8B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Hy3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Inkling
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Inkling-Small
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kimi K3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kolibri-1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kronos
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna M.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna XS 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-VL-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Mistral Large 4
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs occamy-1.0
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ripple-65B Preview
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs SmolLM3-3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Hy3 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Inkling-Small vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Inkling vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kimi K3 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kronos vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Laguna M.1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LBS-27B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Mistral Large 4 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- occamy-1.0 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-vs-ornith-1-5-122b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/deepseek-v4-1-flash.json·/api/v1/tools/ornith-1-5-122b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare deepseek-v4-1-flash ornith-1-5-122b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "deepseek-v4-1-flash", "b": "ornith-1-5-122b"}at/mcp, no key