# Granite 4.2 30B vs Recursive Flint (slim)

> Granite 4.2 30B and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other for open-weight models you run yourself, 61 and 61 out of 100. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/granite-4-2-30b-vs-recursive-flint.md (~9,850 tokens) · this version ~730 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/granite-4-2-30b-vs-recursive-flint.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/granite-4-2-30b-vs-recursive-flint
- 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)

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.

- Granite 4.2 30B: C 61, rank #65 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/granite-4-2-30b.min.md
- Recursive Flint: C 61, rank #54 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/recursive-flint.min.md
- Granite 4.2 30B, good 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.
- Recursive Flint, good 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.

| Category | Granite 4.2 30B | Recursive Flint |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 90 | 85 |
| Risk (20%) | 55 | 60 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 85 | 90 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 87 | 67 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Granite 4.2 30B | Recursive Flint |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | IBM | Recursive |
| Last release | 2026-09-04 | 2026-10-21 |
| Agent reviews | none | 3.5/5 (4) |

Why the edge:
- 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 1…); Recursive Flint 67 (Model card 17 of 20, everything but languages.)
- 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.); 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.)
- Risk, Recursive Flint +5: Granite 4.2 30B 55 (File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25).); 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.)
- 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.); Recursive Flint 90 (Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository and inside both GGUFs.)