Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Ling-3.0-tiny vs Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash scores 59.8 (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, risk 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 70
- Risk, 50 against 45
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 39
Watch for
No inference provider is listed on the Hub and no inclusionAI API serves it
Best for Teams with a GPU server or a provider account that want an open, long-context agent model with vision
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 85 against 60
Watch for
About 131 GB to run at 4 bits with images, over a 128 GB machine's share
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.
Reach Ling-3.0-tiny +25
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.
Step 3.7 Flash 70
Memory 5, the smallest build at 4 bits is StepFun's IQ4_XS GGUF, 104.99 GB with the 3.97 GB projector, and 108.96 GB × 1.2 = 130.8 GB, over what the reference machine can give a model and within 256 GB. The IQ3 and Q3 builds are below 4 bits and aren't read. Runtimes 20, Released vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23 and Transformers 5.22.2 have the step3p7 model, and llama.cpp b12242 has the architecture, with StepFun's own GGUF. Four at 5 each, and the card documents all four. Builds 15, StepFun publishes GGUF at five quantised precisions, an FP8 build and an NVFP4 build. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata and its licence section, an OSI licence with nothing added. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for all four repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 5, StepFun's own API serves it, per the card and our StepFun API listing, and Featherless and DeepInfra are live for it on Hugging Face. 5 + 20 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 5 = 70.
Agent interface Step 3.7 Flash +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.
Step 3.7 Flash 85
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (5,723 characters). Tool-calling format 25, the card names the parser to use in two runtimes, step3p5 in vLLM (with auto tool choice) and in SGLang, and both ship Step parsers in a release. Trained tool calling 20, the card presents tool orchestration as a main use, with multi-turn results, and the template renders every call in a turn. Structured output 0, Nothing on the card about JSON or schema-constrained output for the weights. Reasoning control 10, the template has a reasoning_effort setting and keeps reasoning_content, and the card names the step3p5 reasoning parser for vLLM and SGLang, which returns the reasoning apart from the answer. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, and 262,144 positions in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.
Documentation and upkeep Ling-3.0-tiny +17
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.
Step 3.7 Flash 39
Model card 14, Intended use, the architecture, the parameters, the context and the language (in the metadata) are on the card. Training data 0, Nothing on the card about the training data. Last change 10, the last commit, on 3 June 2026, fixed the modelling code, 160 days before this check and within 180. Responsiveness 0, none of the 11 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (29 May to 24 June 2026) has a reply from a stepfun-ai member, counted on 10 November by author flags and dates with a script, text not read. Version policy 5, Step-3.5-Flash stays in its own repositories and 3.7 came out in new ones, with no dated note on the older cards that we read. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture and the context, and June commits fixed the modelling code. 14 + 0 + 10 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 39.
Risk Ling-3.0-tiny +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).
Step 3.7 Flash 45
File safety 15, safetensors and GGUF only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the stepfun-ai organisation, which the card's StepFun platform and model page belong to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations section and gives no guidance on prompt injection, instruction priority, refusals or safeguards. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, threshold or change clause. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw on the card, and our StepFun API listing found no security.txt, bug bounty or disclosure policy. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Ling-3.0-tiny | Step 3.7 Flash | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 70 | Ling-3.0-tiny +25 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 45 | Ling-3.0-tiny +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 85 | Step 3.7 Flash +25 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 39 | Ling-3.0-tiny +17 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 56.2/100 | C 59.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Ling-3.0-tiny | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | inclusionAI (Ant Group) | StepFun |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 (metadata and card; no LICENSE file) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-08-31 | 2026-06-03 |
| 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
Step 3.7 Flash
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.
Step 3.7 Flash
A capable open agent model with a clean licence, every kind of build and four released runtimes. Two things hold it back: it's a little too big for a 128 GB machine at 4 bits, whatever the card says, and StepFun has gone quiet on the repository since June. No safety results, limitations or data description.
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
Step 3.7 Flash
- On a 128 GB machine the 4-bit GGUF won't fit with a working context. Use StepFun's API or a provider, or a server
- On vLLM or SGLang pass
--tool-call-parser step3p5 --reasoning-parser step3p5 - The card's commands pass trust-remote-code. Released Transformers 5.22.2 has the model built in if you'd rather not run the repository's code
- For llama.cpp load the mmproj file from StepFun's GGUF repository for image input
- StepFun's API has two hosts. Use the one where your key was issued,
api.stepfun.aiorapi.stepfun.com - The same model is on our StepFun API listing, with prices and terms
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Ling-3.0-tiny or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash scores 59.8 (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, risk and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Ling-3.0-tiny or Step 3.7 Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Agents-A1-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Arete-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- BigBang-v1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Carbon-X vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Cola2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Cola2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Devstral Small 2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Devstral Small 2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-120b vs Step 3.7 Flash
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-20b vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling-Small vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Inkling vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling vs Step 3.7 Flash
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kolibri-1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kronos vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kronos vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna M.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LBS-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-1.7B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- 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 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 Step 3.7 Flash
- LongCat-2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Mistral Large 4 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- occamy-1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Recursive Flint vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ripple-65B Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- SmolLM3-3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Spark-X2.6-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Step 3.7 Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Step 3.7 Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/ling-3-0-tiny-vs-step-3-7-flash.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/step-3-7-flash.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ling-3-0-tiny step-3-7-flash(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ling-3-0-tiny", "b": "step-3-7-flash"}at/mcp, no key