Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
LFM3-1.7B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.0-tiny's 56.2 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.0-tiny leads on reach and risk. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 6359 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Agents on a laptop, phone or small server that need tool calling and a long context from a model under 2 GB at 4 bits
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 100 against 60
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 56
Watch for
vLLM and SGLang have no released support, though the card lists both
Best for Agents on a laptop or small GPU that want a fast local model for tool calls and short reasoning, under MIT
Ahead on
- Reach, 95 against 85
- Risk, 50 against 40
Watch for
No inference provider is listed on the Hub and no inclusionAI API serves 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 LFM3-1.7B +40
LFM3-1.7B 100
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (12,129 characters), with roles, tools, deferred tools, tool results and the thinking switch. Tool-calling format 25, the card and Liquid's tool-use page document tools passed through tools= in apply_chat_template, calls returned as XML and results sent back as tool messages. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over every entry in an assistant turn's tool_calls, so several calls fit in one turn, and the card says the model was trained on tool calls and agentic traces and with reinforcement learning inside agent harnesses. Structured output 15, Liquid's API guide documents response_format with a JSON Schema, with lfm3-1.7b as the model in its examples, and says the schema is checked before generation starts. Reasoning control 10, the card documents enable_thinking=False in the chat template to turn reasoning off per request, with reasoning on by default inside think tags, and preserve_thinking for earlier turns. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, which says the mid-training stage extended the context window to 256K, and max_position_embeddings 262144 in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 15 + 10 + 10 = 100.
Ling-3.0-tiny 60
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10, the format is only in the template and the card names the ling3 parser in commands without describing it, while SGLang uses another parser. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn and agentic results on the card. Structured output 0, not documented. Reasoning control 0, thinking turns off per request but the card doesn't say where the reasoning comes back. Context 10, 131,072 tokens native.
Documentation and upkeep LFM3-1.7B +11
LFM3-1.7B 67
Model card 17, Intended use (local agents, tool calling, structured outputs, fine-tuning), a limitation (not recommended for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning), architecture (24 layers: 13 gated short convolutions, 5 sliding-window and 6 global attention), parameters (1.73B), context (256K) and 16 languages. Training data 5, A general description: 22T tokens of pre-training in two stages with the kinds of data added since LFM2, 1.75T tokens of supervised fine-tuning, then mixed reinforcement learning, distillation from six specialist teachers and agentic reinforcement learning. Last change 20, the last commit, on 9 November 2026, added the OpenVINO checkpoint to the card's inference table, a day before this check. Responsiveness 10, Of the 22 discussions that aren't pull requests (27 October to 8 November 2026), 7 have a reply from a LiquidAI member, which is some. Version policy 5, LFM3 came out in new repositories and the LFM2.5 models stay in theirs. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the lfm3 architecture, the 262,144-token context and the thinking switch. 17 + 5 + 20 + 10 + 5 + 10 = 67.
Ling-3.0-tiny 56
Model card 11, intended use, architecture, parameters and context are there, limitations, languages and a cut-off aren't. Training data 15, a data card with sources, size, cut-off and filtering. Last change 15, the newest commit is still the card change of 24 September 2026, 41 days before 4 November. Responsiveness 10, six of 16 discussions answered by an inclusionAI member, some. Version policy 5, a first release at this size. File health 0, the card's MTP recipe contradicts the files and a broken index size waits without a reply.
Reach Ling-3.0-tiny +10
LFM3-1.7B 85
Memory 30, Liquid's Q4_K_M GGUF is 1.10 GB, and 1.10 GB × 1.2 = 1.3 GB, which fits 8 GB, well inside the 16 GB line. Runtimes 15, Released llama.cpp has the lfm3 architecture (src/models/lfm3.cpp at b12242), Ollama's library has an lfm3 entry, and LM Studio's catalogue runs the architecture (its liquid/lfm3-vl-2b entry; lmstudio-community publishes a GGUF of this model). Builds 15, Liquid's GGUF repository holds Q4_0, Q4_K_M, Q8_0, F16 and BF16 files, and Liquid publishes 4-bit and 8-bit MLX builds and an ONNX repository, all in the LiquidAI organisation. Terms 10, the LFM Open License v1.0, a custom licence that lets anyone use it commercially for free below a threshold of $10M annual revenue. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its GGUF, MLX and ONNX repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 5, Liquid's own API lists lfm3-1.7b among its models, so the publisher hosts it. 30 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 85.
Ling-3.0-tiny 95
Memory earns the full 30, since inclusionAI's own Q4_K_M GGUF is 4.8 GB, about 6 GB with a fifth added. Runtimes earn the full 25, from released Transformers, vLLM, SGLang and llama.cpp, and Ollama, whose v0.40.14 (2 November 2026) pins llama.cpp b11963 with the bailingmoe3 architecture (Ollama v0.40.7 of 20 October already pinned b11738, which has it). LM Studio has nothing. Builds earn 15 for FP8, INT4 and four GGUF precisions from inclusionAI. MIT with nothing added gives terms the full 15 and the ungated repositories give download the full 10. Hosted too scores 0, because the Hub's model page lists no inference provider and no inclusionAI or Ant Group API serving it was found.
Risk Ling-3.0-tiny +10
LFM3-1.7B 40
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, files in the LiquidAI organisation, which Liquid's docs page for the model and its blog post link to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card or in Liquid's blog post for the LFM3 family, neither of which mentions safety testing. Agent guidance 0, Nothing on prompt injection, an instruction hierarchy, what refusals cover or safeguards to add. Licence risk 10, 15 less 5 for the $10M annual revenue threshold on commercial use. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw found. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 10 + 0 = 40.
Ling-3.0-tiny 50
File safety gets 15, safetensors and GGUF only, but the card's vLLM command runs the repository's config code with --trust-remote-code. Provenance gets 15 for files in inclusionAI's own organisation with a checksum on each. Safety evaluation is 0, since SingProbe's results grade the probe, not the model. Agent guidance gets 5 for the SingProbe guardrail inclusionAI publishes for this model, with no statement of trained refusals. MIT carries no licence deductions (15). No security contact or disclosure policy was found (0).
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM3-1.7B | Ling-3.0-tiny | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 85 | 95 | Ling-3.0-tiny +10 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 40 | 50 | Ling-3.0-tiny +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 100 | 60 | LFM3-1.7B +40 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 67 | 56 | LFM3-1.7B +11 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 56.2/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM3-1.7B | Ling-3.0-tiny |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Liquid AI | inclusionAI (Ant Group) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-11-09 | 2026-08-31 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | none | 2.8/5 (4) |
How the scores have moved
LFM3-1.7B
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
LFM3-1.7B
A 1.73B model that fits an 8 GB machine with room to spare, with a documented tool-call format, deferred tools, a thinking switch and a 256K context. It runs today in llama.cpp, Ollama and LM Studio only, loads in Transformers through repository code, and has no safety results, security contact or data sources.
Ling-3.0-tiny
A small, quick hybrid reasoning model for local agent work, tool calls and coding, under MIT. It runs in about 6 GB from inclusionAI's 4-bit GGUF in released Transformers, vLLM, SGLang, llama.cpp and Ollama, with no host. The risks are a card that doesn't match the files in places, a vLLM route running repository code, and no safety results.
Before you call either
LFM3-1.7B
- Start it with
llama-server -hf LiquidAI/LFM3-1.7B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinjaorollama run lfm3 - Use temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition penalty 1.1 for chat, tools and agents, per the card
- Pass
enable_thinking=Falsefor direct answers, and expect it to reason anyway on hard tasks - For a large tool catalogue mark tools
defer_loadingand give it a search tool - Don't plan on vLLM or SGLang until a release carries LFM3
- Liquid doesn't recommend it for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning
Ling-3.0-tiny
- Start it with
llama-server -hf inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-tiny-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja -c 32768, which needs llama.cpp b11772 or a recent release with bailingmoe3 - With vLLM 0.32.0,
vllm serve inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-tiny --trust-remote-code --enable-prefix-caching --mamba-cache-mode align --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser ling3 --reasoning-parser ling3, which runs the repository's config code - With SGLang 0.5.22, its cookbook uses
--reasoning-parser deepseek-r1 --tool-call-parser glm45for this model, and drop the card's NEXTN flags since tiny has no MTP layer - Thinking is on by default, pass
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks - Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20
- The template keeps earlier reasoning in the prompt, which grows long agent sessions
- Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
- For a guardrail, inclusionAI's Ling-3.0-tiny-singprobe scores intent, unsafe output and hallucination per token, but only through SGLang and vLLM integration branches
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM3-1.7B or Ling-3.0-tiny?
LFM3-1.7B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.0-tiny's 56.2 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.0-tiny leads on reach and risk.
Other comparisons with LFM3-1.7B or Ling-3.0-tiny
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM3-1.7B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Arete-27B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Carbon-X vs LFM3-1.7B
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Cola2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Cola2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM3-1.7B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Devstral Small 2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Devstral Small 2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM3-1.7B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling-Small vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM3-1.7B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kronos vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kronos vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LBS-27B vs LFM3-1.7B
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-1.7B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs LongCat-2.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- LFM3-1.7B vs Mistral Large 4
- LFM3-1.7B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM3-1.7B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- LFM3-1.7B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- LFM3-1.7B vs occamy-1.0
- LFM3-1.7B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- LFM3-1.7B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- LFM3-1.7B vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- LFM3-1.7B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-1.7B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- LFM3-1.7B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- LFM3-1.7B vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs ZAYA1-8B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs LongCat-2.5
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Mistral Large 4
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs occamy-1.0
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm3-1-7b-vs-ling-3-0-tiny.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/lfm3-1-7b.json·/api/v1/tools/ling-3-0-tiny.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm3-1-7b ling-3-0-tiny(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm3-1-7b", "b": "ling-3-0-tiny"}at/mcp, no key