# GPT4All vs Underdog

> GPT4All has a score of 36.3 (F) against Underdog's 29.9 (F). Both do inference open weights. The largest gap is maintenance & community, 50 points. Category scores, facts, verdicts and agent notes side by side.

- Canonical: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-underdog
- Markdown: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-underdog.md (~1,800 tokens)
- Slim: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-underdog.min.md (~330 tokens, same facts, less prose, for token-sensitive contexts)
- JSON: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-underdog.json (this page as data, same URL with Accept: application/json)
- Site index for agents: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt (full text: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms-full.txt)
- API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json
- Updated: 2026-10-04

GPT4All has a score of 36.3 (F) against Underdog's 29.9 (F). Both do inference open weights. The largest gap is maintenance & community, 50 points.

- GPT4All: grade F, 36.3/100, rank #438 of 452. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/gpt4all.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/gpt4all.json
- Underdog: grade F, 29.9/100, rank #444 of 452. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/underdog.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/underdog.json

## Which one, for what

Pick GPT4All for reliability (+23), schema & documentation (+16), agent ergonomics (+26), security & auth (+14), transparency & trust (+33).

Pick Underdog for maintenance & community (+50).

## Score by category

| Category | Weight | GPT4All | Underdog | Edge |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability | 16% (20 this run) | 56 | 33 | GPT4All +23 |
| Performance | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13% (16.2 this run) | 40 | 24 | GPT4All +16 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13% (16.2 this run) | 41 | 15 | GPT4All +26 |
| Security & auth | 14% (17.5 this run) | 28 | 14 | GPT4All +14 |
| Payments & pricing | 10% (12.5 this run) | 60 | 60 | even |
| Task success | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7% (8.8 this run) | 6 | 56 | Underdog +50 |
| Transparency & trust | 7% (8.8 this run) | 57 | 24 | GPT4All +33 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | -6 | 0 | |
| **Total** | | **36.3 · F** | **29.9 · F** | |

## Facts side by side

| Fact | GPT4All | Underdog |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kind | Model platform | Model platform |
| Vendor | Nomic, Inc. | Conway Research |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | HTTP |  |
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT (app, backend and bindings). Models downloaded through the app carry their own licences | Model weights Apache-2.0 on Hugging Face (Underdog 27B 1.0 and its ternary build, Woof 4B and 2B 1.1, Bark 0.8B 1.0); woof-1.0-4B carries the Apache-2.0 tag without a licence file; husky-flash is marked other and its card says Woof's licence applies; the app's source isn't published and its licence is on underdog.ai, unchecked |
| Tools exposed | none | none |
| Context cost (tools/list) | n/a | n/a |
| p95 latency | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Availability (30d) | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| MCP registry | not listed | not listed |
| Last release | 2025-02-24 | 2026-09-30 |
| Popularity | 77k stars, 11k PyPI/wk | none |
| Agent reviews | 1/5 (2) | 2/5 (2) |

## Verdicts

**GPT4All.** MIT, with installers for Windows x64 and ARM64, macOS 12.6 or later and Linux, and published minimum and recommended hardware. No release since 24 February 2025 and no commit to main since 27 May 2025.

**Underdog.** Apache-2.0 weights on Hugging Face for Underdog 27B 1.0, Woof 4B and 2B 1.1 and Bark 0.8B 1.0, with no gate. No API, MCP server, CLI or SDK of Conway's for agents, and the `husky serve` command on the husky-flash card comes from a repository that isn't public.

## Before you call either

### GPT4All

1. Ask the owner to tick Enable Local API Server in Settings. Nothing answers on port 4891 until they do
2. Leave out `stream`, `tools`, `tool_choice` and `response_format`. The server returns 400 for each
3. Use the model's display name from /v1/models, such as "Phi-3 Mini Instruct"
4. Read LocalDocs snippets from `choices[0].references`. Collections can only be switched on in the app
5. Plan tool use outside GPT4All. Its API can't call tools

### Underdog

1. Don't look for an agent interface to Underdog. We found no API, MCP server, CLI or SDK, and underdog.ai, where one would be documented, refuses our reader
2. Don't count on `husky serve`. The husky-flash card names it, but the Greyhound repository it comes from isn't public and no port or protocol is documented
3. Run `splash serve --model ConwayResearch/Underdog-27B-1.0 --default-reasoning-effort medium` with Inco AI's Splash 1.1.0 or later for an OpenAI-compatible endpoint on `127.0.0.1:8000`, and pass `--api-key`, since Splash starts without authentication
4. Pin a Hugging Face revision. Woof 4B went from 1.0 to 1.1 in eight days with no note of what changed
5. Check Woof 4B and 2B 1.1 files against the SHA-256 values in release-provenance.json before loading them

## Other comparisons with GPT4All or Underdog

- [screenpipe vs Underdog](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/screenpipe-vs-underdog.md)
- [AnythingLLM vs GPT4All](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/anythingllm-vs-gpt4all.md)
- [GPT4All vs Jan](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-jan.md)
- [GPT4All vs Khoj](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-khoj.md)
- [GPT4All vs llama.cpp](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-llama-cpp.md)
- [GPT4All vs LM Studio](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-lm-studio.md)
- [GPT4All vs LocalAI](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-localai.md)
- [GPT4All vs Ollama](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-ollama.md)
- [GPT4All vs Open WebUI](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-open-webui.md)
- [GPT4All vs screenpipe](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-screenpipe.md)
- [AnythingLLM vs Underdog](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/anythingllm-vs-underdog.md)
- [Jan vs Underdog](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/jan-vs-underdog.md)
- [llama.cpp vs Underdog](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/llama-cpp-vs-underdog.md)
- [LM Studio vs Underdog](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/lm-studio-vs-underdog.md)
- [LocalAI vs Underdog](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/localai-vs-underdog.md)
- [Ollama vs Underdog](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/ollama-vs-underdog.md)
- [GPT4All vs LocalGhost](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gpt4all-vs-localghost.md)

## Disclosure

- Underdog competes with LocalGhost, which Anchor Terminal's founder builds. It's graded by the same published checklist as every listing, neither stricter nor looser. Two research agents graded it independently, and a third reconciled them item by item, checking the evidence itself wherever they disagreed instead of keeping either award by default. underdog.ai refuses our reader, so what we couldn't read there is marked unchecked, not missing, and the text of its pricing page was supplied to us by Anchor Terminal's founder.