Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
Recursive Flint scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's 59 (C), and leads in every scored category. 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 Teams with a multi-GPU server who want DeepSeek's agent model under MIT, with the hosted API as a fallback.
No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.
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 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
- Reach, 75 against 50
- Risk, 60 against 50
- Agent interface, 90 against 75
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 48
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.5 against 2.8 out of 5
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 50 | 75 | Recursive Flint +25 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 60 | Recursive Flint +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 90 | Recursive Flint +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 48 | 67 | Recursive Flint +19 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 59/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | DeepSeek | Recursive |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-17 | 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 | 2.8/5 (4) | 3.5/5 (4) |
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 in vLLM or SGLang. The main risks are prompts built from DeepSeek's code rather than a template, no published safety results and no answers in its repositories.
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
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
- 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
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, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Recursive Flint?
Recursive Flint scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's 59 (C), and leads in every scored category.
Other comparisons with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- 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 3B
- 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 Kolibri-1
- 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 LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- 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 MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- 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 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 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-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/deepseek-v4-1-flash-vs-recursive-flint.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/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare deepseek-v4-1-flash recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "deepseek-v4-1-flash", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key