Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
GLM-4.7-Flash scores 63 (B) on agent readiness against Ling-3.0-tiny's 55 (C), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. Ling-3.0-tiny leads on reach and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 2870 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Agents and developers who want a small, permissively licensed tool-calling model on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac, in almost any runtime
Ahead on
- Capability, 59 against 31
- Risk, 55 against 50
- Agent interface, 85 against 60
Watch for
No change to the files since 29 January 2026 and no zai-org reply on discussions since 31 January
Best for Agents on a laptop or small GPU that want a fast local model for tool calls and short reasoning, under MIT
Ahead on
- Reach, 90 against 80
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 28
Watch for
No hosted provider today, and Ollama support is only an unmerged pull request
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | GLM-4.7-Flash | Ling-3.0-tiny | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 59 | 31 | GLM-4.7-Flash +28 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 80 | 90 | Ling-3.0-tiny +10 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 50 | GLM-4.7-Flash +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 60 | GLM-4.7-Flash +25 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 28 | 56 | Ling-3.0-tiny +28 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 63/100 | C 55/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | GLM-4.7-Flash | Ling-3.0-tiny |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Z.ai (Zhipu AI) | inclusionAI (Ant Group) |
| 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 | 2026-01-29 | 2026-08-31 |
| 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) | 2.8/5 (4) |
Verdicts
GLM-4.7-Flash
A small MIT-licensed mixture-of-experts model with about 3B active parameters, for local agent and coding work with several tool calls per turn and optional thinking. It runs in Ollama at about 23 GB and in nearly every common runtime. The main risk is neglect, with no changes or replies since early February and no safety results.
Ling-3.0-tiny
A small, quick hybrid reasoning cousin for local agent work, tool calls and coding, under MIT. It runs in about 6 GB from inclusionAI's 4-bit GGUF in released Transformers, vLLM, SGLang and llama.cpp, with no host. The main risks are a card that doesn't match the files in places, the vLLM route running repository code, and no model safety results.
Before you call either
GLM-4.7-Flash
- On our reference machine start it with
vllm serve zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash --max-model-len 65536 --tool-call-parser glm47 --reasoning-parser glm45 --enable-auto-tool-choice --served-model-name glm-4.7-flash - Or run
ollama run glm-4.7-flashfor the 19 GB q4_K_M build - Without the glm47 and glm45 parsers, tool calls and reasoning come back as plain text
- Use a released vLLM (0.32.0 or later) or SGLang (0.5.22 or later); the card's nightly and pull-request builds date from January 2026
- Pass
chat_template_kwargs: {"enable_thinking": false}for short tasks, since thinking is on by default - Set
clear_thinking: falseto keep earlier reasoning in multi-turn agent work, as Z.ai does for τ²-Bench and Terminal Bench - Set the context length yourself, since config.json allows 202,752 tokens and tokenizer_config.json says 128,000
Ling-3.0-tiny
- Start it with
llama-server -hf inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-tiny-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja -c 32768, which needs llama.cpp b11772 or a recent release with bailingmoe3 - With vLLM 0.32.0,
vllm serve inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-tiny --trust-remote-code --enable-prefix-caching --mamba-cache-mode align --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser ling3 --reasoning-parser ling3, which runs the repository's config code - With SGLang 0.5.22, its cookbook uses
--reasoning-parser deepseek-r1 --tool-call-parser glm45for this model, and drop the card's NEXTN flags since tiny has no MTP layer - Thinking is on by default, pass
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks - Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20
- The template keeps earlier reasoning in the prompt, which grows long agent sessions
- Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
- For a guardrail, inclusionAI's Ling-3.0-tiny-singprobe scores intent, unsafe output and hallucination per token, but only through SGLang and vLLM integration branches
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, GLM-4.7-Flash or Ling-3.0-tiny?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores 63 (B) on agent readiness against Ling-3.0-tiny's 55 (C), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. Ling-3.0-tiny leads on reach and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with GLM-4.7-Flash or Ling-3.0-tiny
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- BigBang-v1 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.5-Air vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs gpt-oss-20b
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Granite 4.2 3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Inkling
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Inkling-Small
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kimi K3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna M.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna XS 2.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs occamy-1.0
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs SmolLM3-3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs occamy-1.0
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-ling-3-0-tiny.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/glm-4-7-flash.json·/api/v1/tools/ling-3-0-tiny.json - From a terminal
anchor compare glm-4-7-flash ling-3-0-tiny(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "glm-4-7-flash", "b": "ling-3-0-tiny"}at/mcp, no key