# Fara1.5-4B vs Fara1.5-9B (slim)

> Fara1.5-4B and Fara1.5-9B score within a point of each other for browser automation, 61 and 61 out of 100. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/fara1-5-4b-vs-fara1-5-9b.md (~1,950 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/fara1-5-4b-vs-fara1-5-9b.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/fara1-5-4b-vs-fara1-5-9b
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-11-10
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Fara1.5-4B and Fara1.5-9B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Both do browser automation.

- Fara1.5-4B: C 61, rank #63 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/fara1-5-4b.min.md
- Fara1.5-9B: C 61, rank #64 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/fara1-5-9b.min.md
- Fara1.5-4B, good for Developers building a supervised web-browsing agent who want open weights and clear safety behaviour Ahead on Reach, 75 against 70.
- Fara1.5-9B, good for Developers building a supervised web-browsing agent who want open weights and clear safety behaviour

| Category | Fara1.5-4B | Fara1.5-9B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 75 | 70 |
| Risk (20%) | 75 | 75 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 80 | 80 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 60 | 60 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Fara1.5-4B | Fara1.5-9B |
| --- | --- | --- |

Why the edge:
- Reach, Fara1.5-4B +5: Fara1.5-4B 75 (Memory 30, the only build from Microsoft is the BF16 safetensors, 9.08 GB, and 9.08 GB × 1.2 = 10.9 GB, within 16 GB.); Fara1.5-9B 70 (Memory 25, the only build from Microsoft is the BF16 safetensors, 18.82 GB, and 18.82 GB × 1.2 = 22.6 GB, within 24 GB.)