Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 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 documentation and upkeep. 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 Agents on a laptop or small GPU that want a fast local model for tool calls and short reasoning, under MIT
Ahead on
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 48
Watch for
No inference provider is listed on the Hub and no inclusionAI API serves it
Best for Agents that need a cheap local model to read screenshots, photos and short video on a phone, a laptop or beside a bigger model
Ahead on
- Risk, 55 against 50
- Agent interface, 70 against 60
Watch for
No limitations section, safety results, agent-use guidance or security contact
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 MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +10
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.
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 70
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository, 7,249 characters. Tool-calling format 10, the card shows tools declared in the OpenAI tools array in a request to Transformers' server, but not how a call comes back, and names no parser for vLLM or SGLang. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over tool_calls, so it renders several calls in one assistant turn, and the card gives a tool-calling request as a supported use. Structured output 0, Neither JSON nor JSON Schema output is documented or claimed for the model on the card. Reasoning control 10, the card passes enable_thinking per request in its examples, the template has been off by default since 19 October 2026, and the GGUF repository keeps thinking builds in their own folder. Context 10, 262,144 tokens, max_position_embeddings in the text config. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 70.
Documentation and upkeep Ling-3.0-tiny +8
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.
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 48
Model card 8, Intended use (image, multi-image and video understanding on device), architecture (early visual-token compression inside the vision encoder) and parameters (1B) are there. Training data 0, no description of the training data on the card. Last change 20, the last commit, on 30 October 2026, updated the card and removed an unused asset folder, eleven days before this check. Responsiveness 0, the repository has no discussions that aren't pull requests (two pull requests in all), so nobody has asked anything yet and the line reads as none answered, as settled in calibration. Version policy 10, MiniCPM-V 4.5 and 4.6 stay in their own repositories and the GitHub README dates each release. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture and the thinking switch, and no report waits without a reply, since there are no discussions. 8 + 0 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 48.
Risk MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +5
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).
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 55
File safety 25, safetensors in the main repository and the AWQ, GPTQ and int4 builds, GGUF in the GGUF build, with no .bin, .pt, .pth or .py files in the main repository. Provenance 15, files in the openbmb organisation that OpenBMB's GitHub README links to (10), with a SHA-256 for both large files in the main repository (5). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations or disclaimer section, and no prompt-injection guidance, instruction hierarchy or statement of trained refusals. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, field-of-use limit, threshold or change clause, nothing is added on the card, and the LICENSE in OpenBMB's GitHub repository resolved on 10 November 2026. Security programme 0, no SECURITY.md in OpenBMB/MiniCPM-V and no security.txt on openbmb.cn (both 404 on 10 November 2026), and no advisories found. 25 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 55.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Ling-3.0-tiny | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 95 | even |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 55 | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 70 | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 48 | Ling-3.0-tiny +8 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 56.2/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Ling-3.0-tiny | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | inclusionAI (Ant Group) | OpenBMB |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-08-31 | 2026-10-30 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | none |
How the scores have moved
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
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.
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
A vision-language cousin small enough for a phone, under plain Apache 2.0, that every runtime we count can load. The projector is bigger than the language model, so plan for about 2 GB. The card says nothing about limits or training data and doesn't show how a tool call comes back.
Before you call either
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
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Start it with
llama-server -hf openbmb/MiniCPM-V-4.7-1B-gguf:Q4_K_M --jinja, orollama run openbmb/minicpm-v4.7:1b - For image input in llama.cpp add
mmproj-model-f16.gguf, or the smaller 4x projector - The GGUF files at the repository root have thinking off. Use the files in
thinking/when you want the trace - Use temperature 0.7, top_p 0.95 and top_k 100 in instruct mode, as the card recommends
- Check tool calls in your runtime first, since the card names no parser
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Ling-3.0-tiny or MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B?
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 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 documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Ling-3.0-tiny or MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Arete-27B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- BigBang-v1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-20b vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 3B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 8B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling-Small vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Inkling vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kronos vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kronos vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna M.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LBS-27B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-VL-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- 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 Nanbeige4.3-33B
- 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 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 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 SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- 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-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Mistral Large 4
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs occamy-1.0
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs SmolLM3-3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/ling-3-0-tiny-vs-minicpm-v-4-7-1b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/ling-3-0-tiny.json·/api/v1/tools/minicpm-v-4-7-1b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ling-3-0-tiny minicpm-v-4-7-1b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ling-3-0-tiny", "b": "minicpm-v-4-7-1b"}at/mcp, no key