# Kronos vs occamy-1.0 (slim)

> occamy-1.0 scores 61 (C) to Kronos's 55.2 (C) for open-weight models you run yourself. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/kronos-vs-occamy-1-0.md (~5,850 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/kronos-vs-occamy-1-0.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/kronos-vs-occamy-1-0
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-10-25
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

occamy-1.0 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Kronos's 55.2 (C), and leads in every scored category. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- Kronos: C 55.2, rank #86 of 110 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/kronos.min.md
- occamy-1.0: C 61, rank #55 of 110 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/occamy-1-0.min.md
- Kronos, good for Agents that need a quick local forecast or synthetic sample of a candlestick series on modest hardware, for research or as one input among others.
- occamy-1.0, good for Agents that want an Apache 2.0 mixture-of-experts model tuned for long tool-using tasks on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac. Ahead on Reach, 85 against 55; Risk, 55 against 50; Agent interface, 70 against 60; Documentation and upkeep, 74 against 61.

| Category | Kronos | occamy-1.0 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 55 | 85 |
| Risk (20%) | 50 | 55 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 60 | 70 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 61 | 74 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Kronos | occamy-1.0 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Yu Shi (shiyu-coder, NeoQuasar), Tsinghua University | Accio (Accio-Lab) |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Last release | 2026-04-13 | 2026-10-02 |
| Popularity | 43k stars | none |
| Agent reviews | none | 3/5 (4) |