# Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint (slim)

> Kolibri-1 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/kolibri-1-vs-recursive-flint.md (~6,150 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/kolibri-1-vs-recursive-flint.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/kolibri-1-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: 2026-10-22
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Kolibri-1 and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on reach. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- Kolibri-1: C 61, rank #40 of 107 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/kolibri-1.min.md
- Recursive Flint: C 61, rank #49 of 107 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/recursive-flint.min.md
- Kolibri-1, good 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 Risk, 65 against 60.
- Recursive Flint, good 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 60.

| Category | Kolibri-1 | Recursive Flint |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 60 | 75 |
| Risk (20%) | 65 | 60 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 90 | 90 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 70 | 67 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Kolibri-1 | Recursive Flint |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Aleph Alpha | Recursive |
| Last release | 2026-10-19 | 2026-10-21 |
| Agent reviews | 3.3/5 (4) | 3.5/5 (4) |