Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
Gemma 4 E4B IT scores 63.2 (B) on agent readiness against Recursive Flint's 61 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Recursive Flint leads on agent interface. 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 Agents that need a cheap, permissively licensed helper on 8 GB of memory, for tool calls, short audio or images, rather than hard reasoning
Ahead on
- Reach, 95 against 75
- Risk, 70 against 60
- Documentation and upkeep, 75 against 67
Watch for
No safety evaluation figures published
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
- Agent interface, 90 against 85
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Gemma 4 E4B IT | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 75 | Gemma 4 E4B IT +20 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 70 | 60 | Gemma 4 E4B IT +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 90 | Recursive Flint +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 75 | 67 | Gemma 4 E4B IT +8 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 63.2/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Gemma 4 E4B IT | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Google DeepMind | Recursive |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-07-20 | 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 | 3.5/5 (4) | 3.5/5 (4) |
Verdicts
Gemma 4 E4B IT
A small cousin for light agent work, tool-calling loops, transcription and image reading on a phone or laptop, under Apache 2.0. Google's 4-bit build needs about 7 GB with working space and runs in all the common runtimes. Google's card puts it far below larger Gemma 4 sizes on agent and coding tasks, with no published safety results.
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
Gemma 4 E4B IT
- On the reference machine run
llama-server -hf google/gemma-4-E4B-it-qat-q4_0-gguf --hf-file gemma-4-E4B_q4_0-it.gguf --jinja -c 131072, and add--mmprojwith gemma-4-E4B-it-mmproj.gguf for images and audio - With Ollama run
ollama run gemma4:e4band raise num_ctx or OLLAMA_CONTEXT_LENGTH, since the default context is small and agents want at least 64K - In vLLM or SGLang pass
--tool-call-parser gemma4 --reasoning-parser gemma4(vLLM also--enable-auto-tool-choice), or tool calls come back as text; Google's w4a16 build is the 4-bit route there - Thinking is off by default; pass enable_thinking=True or start the system prompt with <|think|>, and drop earlier turns' thinking from history except on tool-call turns
- Put images before the text and audio after it, keep audio to 30 seconds and video to 60 frames, and validate tool names and arguments before running them
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, Gemma 4 E4B IT or Recursive Flint?
Gemma 4 E4B IT scores 63.2 (B) on agent readiness against Recursive Flint's 61 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Recursive Flint leads on agent interface.
Other comparisons with Gemma 4 E4B IT or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-5.3
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs gpt-oss-120b
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs gpt-oss-20b
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Granite 4.2 3B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Inkling
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Inkling-Small
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Kimi K3
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Kolibri-1
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Laguna M.1
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs occamy-1.0
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs SmolLM3-3B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- 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/gemma-4-e4b-it-vs-recursive-flint.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/gemma-4-e4b-it.json·/api/v1/tools/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare gemma-4-e4b-it recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "gemma-4-e4b-it", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key