Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Granite 4.2 30B vs Recursive Flint
Granite 4.2 30B and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on risk and agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 4969 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Agents that want a documented, signed, Apache 2.0 reasoning model with tool calling on a 24 GB card
Ahead on
- Reach, 90 against 85
- Documentation and upkeep, 87 against 67
Watch for
No safety results published for it
Best for Agents doing repository work on a 32 to 48 GB Mac or NVIDIA box that want a sparse coder with documented tool calls and a plain licence.
Ahead on
- Risk, 60 against 55
- Agent interface, 90 against 85
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Documentation and upkeep Granite 4.2 30B +20
Granite 4.2 30B 87
Model card 17, Intended use (best for), limitations (ethical considerations and limitations), architecture, parameters (30B), context length (128K native) and 12 tested languages are on the card. Training data 20, IBM's disclosure file for the 30B lists the datasets used in pre-training and post-training as machine-readable metadata, and the card describes the three training stages. Last change 15, the last commit to the repository was on 4 September 2026, 67 days before this check. Responsiveness 20, Of the 4 discussions that aren't pull requests (28 August to 3 November 2026), 3 have a reply from an ibm-granite member. Version policy 5, Granite 4.1 30B stays in its own repository and 4.2 came out in new ones. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture, the 131,072-token context and the thinking switch. 17 + 20 + 15 + 20 + 5 + 10 = 87.
Recursive Flint 67
Model card 17 of 20, everything but languages. Training data 10, a general description of the mix with a June 2026 cut-off. Last change 20, released 13 days ago. Responsiveness 5, Recursive answered one of 31 discussions, on release day. Version policy 5, a first release. File health 10, the files agree with each other and the card, and no broken-file report waits.
Reach Granite 4.2 30B +5
Granite 4.2 30B 90
Memory 25, IBM's own 4-bit MLX build granite-4.2-30b-q4-mlx is 16.47 GB, and 16.47 GB × 1.2 = 19.8 GB, which fits 24 GB but not 16 GB. Its Q4_0 GGUF is 16.58 GB and Ollama's library build granite4.2:30b 18 GB, the same band. Runtimes 25, Released versions run the granite architecture in llama.cpp (granite, b12242), vLLM (GraniteForCausalLM in the v0.33.0 registry), SGLang (granite.py at v0.5.23), Transformers (v5.22.2) and Ollama (its own granite4.2 library entry, 30b tag). Builds 15, IBM publishes FP8, MXFP4 and NVFP4 safetensors builds, a GGUF repository with Q4_0 to Q8_0 and BF16 files, and 4-bit, 8-bit and BF16 MLX builds, so quantised builds at two precisions or more. Terms 15, Apache 2.0, an OSI-approved licence, with no use policy or other terms added on the card. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the BF16, FP8, MXFP4, NVFP4, GGUF and MLX repositories, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps one inference provider (DeepInfra, live), short of the two the line needs. 25 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 90.
Recursive Flint 85
Memory 20 of 30, Recursive's MLX INT4 build is 22.6 GB, or 27.1 GB with a fifth added, which fits 32 GB, and every other 4-bit build lands in the same band. Runtimes 25 of 25, released llama.cpp (b11803), Ollama 0.40.8, LM Studio's catalogue, Transformers v5.21 and vLLM v0.33.0 run it, while SGLang has only a development image. Builds 15, MLX INT4 plus Q4_1 and NVFP4 GGUFs from Recursive. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 with nothing added. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, OpenRouter lists a free endpoint with Recursive as its provider, but it wasn't serving on 3 November 2026, with 0 per cent uptime over the last day.
Risk Recursive Flint +5
Granite 4.2 30B 55
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the ibm-granite organisation, which IBM's Granite docs and the GitHub README link to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 5, General cautions. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, field-of-use limit, threshold or change clause, and the card's licence link resolves. Security programme 5, www.ibm.com/.well-known/security.txt names IBM PSIRT, read for the 3B listing on 4 November 2026 (5). 15 + 15 + 0 + 5 + 15 + 5 = 55.
Recursive Flint 60
File safety 15 of 25, safetensors and GGUF only, but the card's documented BF16 route installs the wheel shipped in the repository. Provenance 15, the files are in the RecursiveSI organisation that Recursive's own engine downloads from, with a checksum on every file. Safety evaluation 0, none on the cards or in the announcement post. Agent guidance 10, the card and serving README say to enforce permissions around tool use and to strip tool tags from untrusted tool output, but there's no trained instruction hierarchy. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0. Security programme 5, a reporting address on the card and a private reporting route for the engine, with no public advisories yet.
Agent interface Recursive Flint +5
Granite 4.2 30B 85
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository, with roles, tools, tool responses, the thinking switch and low effort. Tool-calling format 25, the card has tool-calling sections for vLLM and SGLang, declares tools with OpenAI's function schema and names the parser to use, qwen3_coder, which both runtimes ship in the released versions read. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over every entry in an assistant turn's tool_calls, so it renders several calls in one turn, and the card names tool calling and agentic workflows as what it's best for. Structured output 0, the card doesn't document JSON or JSON Schema output or how to ask for it. Reasoning control 10, the card documents thinking on by default, non-thinking and low-effort modes per request through the template (enable_thinking and low_effort), with the reasoning returned apart from the answer. Context 10, 131,072 tokens natively per the card and config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.
Recursive Flint 90
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository and inside both GGUFs. Tool-calling format 25, Recursive's serving README documents how tools go in, how calls come back and the flint parser. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn. Structured output 15, response_format with JSON Schema is documented. Reasoning control 0, the model decides when to reason and Recursive says there's no switch or budget. Context 10, 262,144 tokens with no position scaling.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Granite 4.2 30B | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 85 | Granite 4.2 30B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 60 | Recursive Flint +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 90 | Recursive Flint +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 87 | 67 | Granite 4.2 30B +20 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Granite 4.2 30B | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | IBM | 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 | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-09-04 | 2026-10-21 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | none | 3.5/5 (4) |
How the scores have moved
Granite 4.2 30B
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
Granite 4.2 30B
IBM's largest reasoning cousin, with the same strengths as the 3B. It runs in every runtime we count from IBM's own builds on a 24 GB card, is signed, plain Apache 2.0, and comes with a disclosure of its training data. No safety results are published and structured output isn't documented.
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. Released llama.cpp, Ollama, vLLM and Transformers run it, while Recursive's free OpenRouter endpoint wasn't serving on 3 November 2026. 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
Granite 4.2 30B
- Start it with
ollama run granite4.2:30b, orllama-server -hf ibm-granite/granite-4.2-30b-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja - With vLLM 0.32.0 or later leave out
--reasoning-parser-plugin, since the parser is built in, and use--tool-call-parser qwen3_coder - Thinking is on by default. Pass
enable_thinkingfalse to turn it off orlow_efforttrue for short reasoning - The context is 131,072 tokens. The card's 512K extension isn't documented
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
- IBM recommends Granite Guardian beside it to flag risky inputs and outputs
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
- Check OpenRouter's endpoints list before calling recursive/flint-v1.0:free, since its only endpoint (Recursive, BF16) showed 0 per cent uptime over the last day on 3 November 2026
- vLLM needs v0.33.0 or later and Transformers v5.21 or later; released SGLang has no Flint model
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Granite 4.2 30B or Recursive Flint?
Granite 4.2 30B and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on risk and agent interface.
Other comparisons with Granite 4.2 30B or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- Arete-27B vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Arete-27B vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs Granite 4.2 30B
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Granite 4.2 30B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Granite 4.2 30B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Granite 4.2 30B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Granite 4.2 30B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Granite 4.2 30B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Granite 4.2 30B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Granite 4.2 30B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3 vs Granite 4.2 30B
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs Granite 4.2 30B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-20b vs Granite 4.2 30B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Granite 4.2 3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Granite 4.2 8B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Hy3
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Inkling
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Inkling-Small
- Granite 4.2 30B vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Kimi K3
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Kolibri-1
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Kronos
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Laguna M.1
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LBS-27B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Mistral Large 4
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs occamy-1.0
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Granite 4.2 30B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Granite 4.2 30B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B 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 K3.1 Pro vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
- Kronos vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna M.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- LBS-27B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-1.7B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- Mistral Large 4 vs Recursive Flint
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Recursive Flint
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB 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-1.5-122B 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
- Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B 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 Ripple-65B Preview
- 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)
- Recursive Flint vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/granite-4-2-30b-vs-recursive-flint.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/granite-4-2-30b.json·/api/v1/tools/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare granite-4-2-30b recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "granite-4-2-30b", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key