Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
Kolibri-1 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in every scored category. 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 German and English agent work with tools on a machine with about 96 GB of accelerator memory and vLLM, where a permissive licence matters.
Ahead on
- Reach, 65 against 60
- Risk, 65 against 45
- Agent interface, 90 against 60
- Documentation and upkeep, 70 against 56
Watch for
The smallest publisher build is FP8 at 78.8 GB, so it needs about 95 GB and won't fit a 64 GB machine
Best for Teams with a multi-GPU server that want an MIT-licensed flagship for long agent runs and coding
No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.
Watch for
574 GB in FP8 with no smaller build from inclusionAI, so no single machine under 690 GB of GPU memory runs it
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.
Agent interface Kolibri-1 +30
Kolibri-1 90
The chat template earns 20 as Jinja in tokenizer_config.json. The tool-calling format earns 25, because the card documents how tools are declared and how calls come back and names the kolibri1 parser for vLLM with a full example. Trained tool calling earns 20, from training on tool environments and a template built for several calls in one turn. Structured output earns 5, since the card claims it without saying how to ask. Reasoning control earns 10 for effort levels and an off switch per request, with the reasoning returned in a separate field. Context earns 10 for 262,144 tokens trained.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (6,042 characters), which handles tools, the thinking switch and preserved reasoning. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says how tools are declared (JSON in <tools>) and how calls come back (<tool_call>name with <arg_key> and <arg_value> pairs). Trained tool calling 20, the template tells the model it may call one or more functions and loops over every entry in an assistant message's tool_calls, and the card reports gains on agentic benchmarks, AA-Briefcase and AutomationBench-AA among them. Structured output 0, the card doesn't document JSON or JSON Schema output. Reasoning control 0, the card documents turning thinking on or off per request with chat_template_kwargs enable_thinking, and names the ling3 reasoning parser, but doesn't say where the reasoning text comes back. Context 10, 262,144 tokens natively in config.json (max_position_embeddings 262144, rope_scaling null) and per SGLang's cookbook. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.
Risk Kolibri-1 +20
Kolibri-1 65
File safety earns 25 for safetensors only, with no repository code run on load. Provenance earns 15, for the Aleph-Alpha organisation the launch post links and a SHA-256 for every weight shard. Safety evaluation earns 0, because the card says refusals were measured and neither the card nor the technical report publishes results. Agent guidance earns 10, since the card says what the trained refusals cover and which safeguards to add around the model, without prompt-injection guidance. Licence risk earns the full 15 under unchanged Apache 2.0. The security programme earns 0, as no contact, policy or advisories were found and security.txt answered 403 on 3 November, so it is scored as absent and left open.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 45
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25), less 10 because the card's documented vLLM command passes --trust-remote-code, which runs the repository's configuration_bailing_moe_v3.py, since vLLM 0.33.0 registers no bailing_hybrid config of its own. Provenance 15, files in the inclusionAI organisation that inclusion-ai.org links to, per the Ling-3.0-tiny listing (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results for the model on its card or in the training-content summary. Agent guidance 0, the card has nothing on prompt injection, refusals or safeguards, and inclusionAI publishes no guardrail probe for this model as it did for Ling 3.0. Licence risk 15, MIT with no use policy, no field-of-use limits, no threshold and no clause letting inclusionAI change or revoke it. Security programme 0, www.inclusion-ai.org answers 404 for security.txt on 10 November 2026, and the Ling-3.0-tiny listing found no SECURITY.md or disclosure policy in the inclusionAI .github repository. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
Documentation and upkeep Kolibri-1 +14
Kolibri-1 70
The model card earns 20 with all seven items. Training data earns 15 for a data card with the mix, the filtering and the cut-off, short of a dataset list with sizes. The last change earns 20, for template and card commits on 20 October 2026. Responsiveness earns 5, since Aleph Alpha replied in 2 of 14 discussions across both repositories and none since 13 October. Version policy earns 5 for a first release. File health earns 5, because the files agree but a report of a broken tool-call parser in the publisher's container image has waited since 7 October without a reply.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 56
Model card 11, Intended use (complex reasoning, multi-step tasks and agentic workflows), architecture, parameters (560B total, 25B active) and context (1M claimed) are on the card. Training data 15, the training-content summary the card links names the source categories (Common Crawl and other public datasets, commercially licensed data, the Ant Spider crawler, synthetic data), the size band (over 10 trillion text tokens), data collected up to about July 2026 and the filtering, without listing datasets with sizes. Last change 20, the newest commit, on 4 November 2026, edited the card, six days before this check, and the files went up on 27 October. Responsiveness 0, Neither of the 2 discussions that aren't pull requests (both opened on 27 October 2026) has a reply from an inclusionAI member. Version policy 5, the update went into a repository of its own and Ling-3.1-flash and Ling 3.0 stay in theirs. File health 5, the card states a 1M-token context while config.json gives 262,144 with no rope scaling, and its serve commands name the earlier repository as the model path. 11 + 15 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 5 = 56.
Reach Kolibri-1 +5
Kolibri-1 65
Memory earns 10 because the smallest qualifying build is Aleph Alpha's own FP8 one at 78.8 GB, which comes to 94.6 GB with the fifth added and so fits only the reference machine's band. There is no publisher 4-bit or GGUF build and no Ollama library entry to bring it lower. Runtimes earn 20, for released Transformers 5.20.0, released llama.cpp builds from b11709, Ollama 0.40.14, which builds llama.cpp b11963 with kolibri1, and vLLM, through Aleph Alpha's plugin for 0.29 and natively in 0.33.0 through its Transformers backend. LM Studio's latest runtime predates kolibri1 and SGLang 0.5.23 has no model file. Builds earn 10 for the one FP8 quantisation beside BF16. Terms earn 15 for Apache 2.0 with no use policy. Download earns 10 because neither repository is gated. Hosted earns 0, since no inference provider is listed on the Hub and Aleph Alpha names no API serving it.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Memory 0, inclusionAI's only build is the FP8 release at 573.78 GB, × 1.2 = 688.5 GB, above 256 GB, and no runtime's library has a build. Runtimes 25, Released model code in Transformers 5.22.2 (bailing_hybrid), vLLM 0.33.0 (BailingMoeV3ForCausalLM, with ling3 tool and reasoning parsers), SGLang 0.5.23 (bailing_moe_v3.py, its bailing_hybrid config and MTP module) and llama.cpp b12242 (bailingmoe3), and Ollama, credited through its pinned llama.cpp as on the Ling-3.0-tiny listing: v0.40.16 sets LLAMA_CPP_VERSION to b12177. Builds 10, the release is FP8, the one quantised precision inclusionAI publishes for it. Terms 15, MIT in the card's metadata, with no use policy or other terms added on the card or in the repository. Download 10, the Hub API's model info gives gated false on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and no terms to accept. Hosted 0, the Hub API's provider mapping is empty for this repository on 10 November 2026. 0 + 25 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 60.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Kolibri-1 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 65 | 60 | Kolibri-1 +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 65 | 45 | Kolibri-1 +20 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 90 | 60 | Kolibri-1 +30 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 70 | 56 | Kolibri-1 +14 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 54.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Kolibri-1 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Aleph Alpha | inclusionAI (Ant Group) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-19 | 2026-11-04 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 3.3/5 (4) | none |
How the scores have moved
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
Kolibri-1
Kolibri-1 is a German and English reasoning model with a documented tool-call format, switchable thinking and a 262,144-token context, under Apache 2.0. Aleph Alpha's FP8 build needs about 95 GB and runs on vLLM and Transformers 5.20; llama.cpp and Ollama 0.40.14 need a GGUF. The main risk is no published safety results or security contact, and few repository answers.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
inclusionAI's newest flagship, a 560B hybrid mixture of experts under plain MIT that vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp run in released versions. It ships only as 574 GB of FP8, so it needs a multi-GPU server. The card overstates the context, documents little about tool calls, and has no safety results.
Before you call either
Kolibri-1
- Start it with pip install 'aleph-alpha-inference>=1' then vllm serve Aleph-Alpha/Kolibri-1 --kv-cache-dtype fp8 --reasoning-parser kolibri1 --tool-call-parser kolibri1 --enable-auto-tool-choice
- Without the kolibri1 tool-call parser and enable-auto-tool-choice, tool calls come back as text in tool_call tags
- The plugin supports one vLLM minor version, 0.29. vLLM 0.33.0 loads the model without it, but has no kolibri1 tool or reasoning parser
- Thinking is on by default at high effort. Pass reasoning_effort none or enable_thinking false in chat_template_kwargs for short tasks
- Recommended sampling is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.97 and top_k 128
- Past 262,144 tokens, add --max-model-len 1048576 and the max_position_embeddings override in --hf-overrides, though Aleph Alpha recommends staying at or below 262,144
- With Transformers 5.20 or later, tokenizer.parse_response returns the answer in content and the reasoning in thinking
- On the reference machine the FP8 build fits by size, but no document confirms vLLM runs FP8 on gfx1151, and Aleph Alpha ships no GGUF for llama.cpp or Ollama
- Validate tool results in your own code, as the card asks
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later on 8 H200 or 4 GB300 GPUs, per the card, and use this repository's name as the model path, not the earlier one the card's command shows
- With vLLM pass
--trust-remote-code,--tool-call-parser ling3and--reasoning-parser ling3 - Set
chat_template_kwargsenable_thinkingfalse for direct answers. Reasoning comes back inreasoning_contentper SGLang's cookbook - Plan on 262,144 tokens of context. The 1M figure needs the YaRN override in SGLang's cookbook
- Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20, per the card
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Kolibri-1 or Ling-3.1-flash-1019?
Kolibri-1 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in every scored category.
Other comparisons with Kolibri-1 or Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs Kolibri-1
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Kolibri-1
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Kolibri-1
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs Kolibri-1
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs Kolibri-1
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs Kolibri-1
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Kolibri-1
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Kolibri-1
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Kolibri-1
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kolibri-1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Kolibri-1
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Kolibri-1
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Kolibri-1
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Kolibri-1
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Kolibri-1
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Kolibri-1
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Kolibri-1
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-120b vs Kolibri-1
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-20b vs Kolibri-1
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Kolibri-1
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Kolibri-1
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Kolibri-1
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Kolibri-1
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs Kolibri-1
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling-Small vs Kolibri-1
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling vs Kolibri-1
- Inkling vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Kolibri-1
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Kolibri-1
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3 vs Kolibri-1
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kolibri-1 vs Kronos
- Kolibri-1 vs Laguna M.1
- Kolibri-1 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Kolibri-1 vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Kolibri-1 vs LBS-27B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kolibri-1 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Kolibri-1 vs Mistral Large 4
- Kolibri-1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Kolibri-1 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Kolibri-1 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Kolibri-1 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Kolibri-1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Kolibri-1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Kolibri-1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Kolibri-1 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Kolibri-1 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Kolibri-1 vs occamy-1.0
- Kolibri-1 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Kolibri-1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Kolibri-1 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Kolibri-1 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Kolibri-1 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Kolibri-1 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Kolibri-1 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Kolibri-1 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Mistral Large 4
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs occamy-1.0
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/kolibri-1-vs-ling-3-1-flash-1019.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/kolibri-1.json·/api/v1/tools/ling-3-1-flash-1019.json - From a terminal
anchor compare kolibri-1 ling-3-1-flash-1019(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "kolibri-1", "b": "ling-3-1-flash-1019"}at/mcp, no key