Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

Inkling-Small vs Recursive Flint

Inkling-Small scores 66.5 (B) on agent readiness against Recursive Flint's 61 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Recursive Flint leads on reach and 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

Inkling-Small B

Best for Teams with 256 GB or more of datacentre GPU memory who want an open multimodal agent model with audio input and adjustable thinking.

Ahead on

  • Risk, 70 against 60
  • Documentation and upkeep, 82 against 67

Watch for

The smallest build Thinking Machines publishes needs about 205 GB

Recursive Flint C

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

  • Reach, 75 against 55
  • Agent interface, 90 against 85

Watch for

No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runInkling-SmallRecursive FlintEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%255575Recursive Flint +20
Risk20%207060Inkling-Small +10
Agent interface10%108590Recursive Flint +5
Documentation and upkeep10%108267Inkling-Small +15
Negative events≤1500
TotalB 66.5/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactInkling-SmallRecursive Flint
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorThinking Machines LabRecursive
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-07-312026-10-21
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno 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 reviews3.5/5 (4)3.5/5 (4)

Verdicts

Inkling-Small

A mixture-of-experts generalist with images and audio in, several tool calls a turn and per-request thinking effort. It needs about 205 GB for Thinking Machines' NVFP4 build on recent NVIDIA or AMD datacentre GPUs, and Tinker or DeepInfra host it. The main risks are a use policy that binds on download and can change, and no outside 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

Inkling-Small

  1. Start the NVFP4 build with SGLang's recipe, sglang serve --trust-remote-code --model-path thinkingmachines/Inkling-Small-NVFP4 --tp 8 --enable-multimodal --reasoning-parser inkling --tool-call-parser inkling, on Blackwell for W4A4
  2. Use the inkling tool and reasoning parsers in vLLM or SGLang, or Thinking Machines' tml-renderers package to render prompts and parse calls yourself
  3. Pass reasoning_effort as none, minimal, low, medium, high (the default) or max, or a number from 0 to 0.99. The repository's template has no xhigh preset and raises an error for it, though Thinking Machines' docs and SGLang's cookbook list xhigh
  4. Effort none conditions the model toward no reasoning but doesn't forbid it, and higher effort needs a larger max_tokens
  5. Tool call arguments must reach the template as an object, not a JSON string, or it raises an error
  6. Images should be 40 to 4096 px a side and audio 16 kHz WAV under two minutes, per the card
  7. Use guided decoding or validate JSON yourself, since structured output isn't documented
  8. Read the Model Acceptable Use Policy before deploying, it binds on download and bars some uses that are legal

Recursive Flint

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Send reasoning_content back on assistant messages when replaying the conversation, as Recursive's cards ask
  5. 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
  6. Message content must be a string, flatten content-part arrays first
  7. 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, Inkling-Small or Recursive Flint?

Inkling-Small scores 66.5 (B) on agent readiness against Recursive Flint's 61 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Recursive Flint leads on reach and agent interface.

Other comparisons with Inkling-Small or Recursive Flint

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.