Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Ling-3.0-tiny vs North Mini Code 1.0
North Mini Code 1.0 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 documentation and upkeep. 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 or small GPU that want a fast local model for tool calls and short reasoning, under MIT
Ahead on
- Reach, 95 against 85
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 36
Watch for
No inference provider is listed on the Hub and no inclusionAI API serves it
Best for Developers who want a coding agent on their own GPU with a permissive licence
Ahead on
- Risk, 60 against 50
- Agent interface, 85 against 60
Watch for
No limitations, safety results, languages or data description on the card
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 North Mini Code 1.0 +25
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.
North Mini Code 1.0 85
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (12,397 characters). Tool-calling format 25, the card documents how tools are declared (JSON schema through the chat template), how the call and its thinking go back into the history and how results are appended, and names the cohere_command4 tool-call parser for vLLM, which released vLLM has. Trained tool calling 20, the card says the model was specifically trained with tool-use capabilities for agentic coding, with reinforcement learning on verifiable tasks, and the template renders every call in a turn with thinking between them. Structured output 0, JSON schema is for describing tools. Reasoning control 10, the template has a reasoning_effort setting, and the card names the cohere_command4 reasoning parser, which returns thinking apart from the answer. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, with 64K of output, and 500,000 positions in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.
Documentation and upkeep Ling-3.0-tiny +20
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.
North Mini Code 1.0 36
Model card 11, Intended use, the architecture, the parameters and the context are on the card. Training data 0, the card gives the training method and nothing about the data. Last change 10, the main repository last changed on 15 June 2026 (outdated chat templates removed), 148 days before this check, and the draft model's repository on 29 July, 104 days. Responsiveness 0, none of the 11 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (7 June to 6 November 2026) has a reply from a CohereLabs member, counted on 10 November by author flags and dates with a script, text not read. Version policy 5, A first release, with each build in its own repository. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture, and the June commit that removed broken templates says so. 11 + 0 + 10 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 36.
Reach Ling-3.0-tiny +10
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.
North Mini Code 1.0 85
Memory 25, the smallest build from Cohere is the w4a16 repository, 19.38 GB, and 19.38 GB × 1.2 = 23.3 GB, within 24 GB. Unsloth's GGUF isn't read for this line. Runtimes 20, Released vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23 and Transformers 5.22.2 have the cohere2_moe model, and llama.cpp b12242 has the cohere2moe architecture. Builds 15, Quantised builds from Cohere at two precisions, FP8 and 4-bit weights (w4a16), each in its own repository. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the metadata and on the card, an OSI licence with nothing added. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its builds on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps no inference provider to it. 25 + 20 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 85.
Risk North Mini Code 1.0 +10
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).
North Mini Code 1.0 60
File safety 25, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files and no Python in the repository. Provenance 15, the files sit in Cohere's verified CohereLabs organisation, which cohere.com links to per our other Cohere listings (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations or safety section, and nothing on prompt injection, instruction priority or what the model refuses. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, threshold or change clause. Security programme 5, Cohere's trust centre holds a responsible disclosure policy with a bug bounty, as recorded on our Cohere listings (5). 25 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 5 = 60.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Ling-3.0-tiny | North Mini Code 1.0 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 85 | Ling-3.0-tiny +10 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 60 | North Mini Code 1.0 +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 85 | North Mini Code 1.0 +25 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 36 | Ling-3.0-tiny +20 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 56.2/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Ling-3.0-tiny | North Mini Code 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | inclusionAI (Ant Group) | Cohere |
| 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 | 2026-07-29 |
| 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
North Mini Code 1.0
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.
North Mini Code 1.0
A coding agent model that fits one 24 GB GPU at 4 bits, trained for tool use, with a 256K context, Apache 2.0 and four released runtimes. It's a research release and reads like one: nothing on limitations, safety or data, the card's run instructions are out of date, and Cohere hasn't answered a question on the repository.
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
North Mini Code 1.0
- Serve it with vLLM 0.33.0 or later and
--tool-call-parser cohere_command4 --reasoning-parser cohere_command4 --enable-auto-tool-choice, withcohere_melodyinstalled - Pass the model's thinking back with its tool calls on every turn. The card says results drop without it
- Describe tools in JSON schema and append tool results as a dictionary with the tool role
- Use temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95
- For llama.cpp the GGUF files are Unsloth's or bartowski's conversions, not Cohere's
- It's text only. Don't send images
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Ling-3.0-tiny or North Mini Code 1.0?
North Mini Code 1.0 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 documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Ling-3.0-tiny or North Mini Code 1.0
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Agents-A1-4B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Arete-27B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- BigBang-v1 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Carbon-X vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Cola2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Cola2 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs North Mini Code 1.0
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs North Mini Code 1.0
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Devstral Small 2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Devstral Small 2 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs North Mini Code 1.0
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs North Mini Code 1.0
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.5-Air vs North Mini Code 1.0
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs North Mini Code 1.0
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs North Mini Code 1.0
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-120b vs North Mini Code 1.0
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-20b vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 30B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 3B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 8B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy3 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling-Small vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Inkling vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling vs North Mini Code 1.0
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kolibri-1 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Kronos vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kronos vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna M.1 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna S 2.1 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LBS-27B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-1.7B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-VL-2B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- 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 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
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- LongCat-2.5 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL vs North Mini Code 1.0
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- MiniCPM5-2B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Mistral Large 4 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs occamy-1.0
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Recursive Flint
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs SmolLM3-3B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/ling-3-0-tiny-vs-north-mini-code-1-0.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/north-mini-code-1-0.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ling-3-0-tiny north-mini-code-1-0(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ling-3-0-tiny", "b": "north-mini-code-1-0"}at/mcp, no key