Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-122B
Ornith-1.5-122B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.0-tiny's 56.2 (C), and leads in 1 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 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
- Reach, 95 against 75
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 36
Watch for
No inference provider is listed on the Hub and no inclusionAI API serves it
Best for Local coding and terminal agents on a 128 GB unified-memory machine or a 96 GB GPU setup, where a clear licence file and an answering publisher aren't required
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 85 against 60
Watch for
No LICENSE file though the card links one, and no notice for the Apache 2.0 Qwen3.5 and Gemma 4 work it builds on
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 Ornith-1.5-122B +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.
Ornith-1.5-122B 85
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 25, the card shows how tools go in and how calls come back and names the parser for vLLM and SGLang. Trained tool calling 20, Ornith trains it on agent tasks and the template renders several calls in one turn. Structured output 0, not documented or claimed. Reasoning control 10, Ornith's template reads enable_thinking per request and the card says the reasoning comes back in reasoning_content, though the card doesn't name the switch. Context 10, 262,144 tokens native.
Reach Ling-3.0-tiny +20
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.
Ornith-1.5-122B 75
Memory 10, since Ornith's own MLX 4-bit build is 69.7 GB and needs about 83.6 GB with the fifth added, over 64 GB and inside the reference machine's 107.4 GB, as do its Q4_K_M GGUF, its NVFP4 build and Ollama's build. Runtimes 25, the most the line gives, from vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23, Transformers 5.22.2, llama.cpp's qwen35moe architecture, Ollama's library and LM Studio's catalogue for the qwen35moe architecture. Builds 15, Ornith publishes FP8, NVFP4, GGUF and MLX at several precisions. Terms 15, MIT as named in the card's metadata, with nothing added, read by its terms though the repository has no licence file. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, Ornith runs no API and no inference provider serves it. 10 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 75.
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.
Ornith-1.5-122B 36
Model card 11, it covers intended use, architecture, parameters and context but not limitations, languages or a knowledge cut-off. Training data 5, a description of the method with no data or cut-off. Last change 20, a folder upload to the MLX builds on 24 October 2026, 17 days ago. Responsiveness 0, Ornith answered none of the 5 questions and reports. Version policy 0, the MLX builds were uploaded a second time four days after the first with no note. File health 0, the card links a missing LICENSE, states hardware its own files don't fit and names a variant that doesn't exist, and the two chat templates differ. 11 + 5 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 36.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Ling-3.0-tiny | Ornith-1.5-122B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 75 | Ling-3.0-tiny +20 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 50 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 85 | Ornith-1.5-122B +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 | Ornith-1.5-122B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | inclusionAI (Ant Group) | Ornith |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-08-31 | 2026-10-24 |
| 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
Ornith-1.5-122B
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.
Ornith-1.5-122B
The largest Ornith that fits a 128 GB machine, a coding and terminal-agent cousin on Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's architecture with XML tool calls and 262,144 tokens of context. Its 4-bit builds need 84 to 93 GB. The main risk is an absent publisher, with no licence file, safety results or replies, and a card that misstates the hardware.
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
Ornith-1.5-122B
- Start it with
ollama run ornith-1.5:122b-q4_K_M, orllama-server -hf ornith-ai/Ornith-1.5-122B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja -c 262144 - Budget about 92 GB for the Q4_K_M GGUF with a working context, and less context if the machine has under 100 GB for the model
- In vLLM pass
--enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_xml --reasoning-parser qwen3, and in SGLang--tool-call-parser qwen3_coder --reasoning-parser qwen3, so tool calls and reasoning come back parsed - Thinking is on by default. Send
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention - Pin which template your runtime loads, since chat_template.jinja keeps earlier reasoning and the tokenizer_config.json template drops it
- Use temperature 0.6, top_p 0.95, top_k 20 for coding and temperature 1.0 for general tasks, as the card recommends
- Add mmproj-Ornith-1.5-122B-BF16.gguf (0.9 GB) for image input in llama.cpp, and validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Ling-3.0-tiny or Ornith-1.5-122B?
Ornith-1.5-122B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.0-tiny's 56.2 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.0-tiny leads on reach and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Ling-3.0-tiny or Ornith-1.5-122B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Arete-27B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- BigBang-v1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy3 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling-Small vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Inkling vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kolibri-1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kronos vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kronos vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna M.1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LBS-27B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- 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 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 Nanbeige4.3-33B
- 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-1.5-35B-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 Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Mistral Large 4 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- occamy-1.0 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/ling-3-0-tiny-vs-ornith-1-5-122b.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/ornith-1-5-122b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ling-3-0-tiny ornith-1-5-122b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ling-3-0-tiny", "b": "ornith-1-5-122b"}at/mcp, no key