# Kronos vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT (slim)

> OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT scores 56.8 (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-otel-2-0-llm-31b-it.md (~9,200 tokens) · this version ~730 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/kronos-vs-otel-2-0-llm-31b-it.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/kronos-vs-otel-2-0-llm-31b-it
- 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)

OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT scores 56.8 (C) on agent readiness against Kronos's 55.2 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Kronos leads on reach. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- Kronos: C 55.2, rank #122 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/kronos.min.md
- OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT: C 56.8, rank #111 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/otel-2-0-llm-31b-it.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. Ahead on Reach, 55 against 50.
- OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT, good for Telecoms teams that want an open model for standards questions and RAG on their own hardware Ahead on Risk, 55 against 50; Documentation and upkeep, 74 against 61.

| Category | Kronos | OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 55 | 50 |
| Risk (20%) | 50 | 55 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 60 | 60 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 61 | 74 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Kronos | OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Yu Shi (shiyu-coder, NeoQuasar), Tsinghua University | AT&T (Open Telco AI) |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Last release | 2026-04-13 | 2026-11-01 |
| Popularity | 43k stars | none |

Why the edge:
- Documentation and upkeep, OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT +13: Kronos 61 (Model card 11, intended use, architecture, parameters and context are there, limitations, languages and a cut-off aren't.); OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT 74 (Model card 14, Intended use, a long limitations section, the architecture and training method, the parameters (31B) and the language (English) are on the card.)
- Reach, Kronos +5: Kronos 55 (Memory 30, the publisher's Kronos-mini with its tokeniser is 0.03 GB and even Kronos-base is 0.43 GB in FP32. Runtimes 0, it runs only through the publisher's o…); OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT 50 (Memory 10, the publisher's only build is the BF16 safetensors, 62.55 GB for the 15 shards the index names, and 62.55 GB × 1.2 = 75.1 GB, above 64 GB and inside…)
- Risk, OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT +5: Kronos 50 (File safety 15, safetensors only, but the only documented loading path is the publisher's Python package in place of a runtime.); OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT 55 (File safety 25, safetensors only, with no .bin, .pt or .pth files and no Python files.)