Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 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 6359 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Teams with a multi-GPU server that want an MIT-licensed flagship for long agent runs and coding
Ahead on
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 48
Watch for
574 GB in FP8 with no smaller build from inclusionAI, so no single machine under 690 GB of GPU memory runs 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
- Reach, 95 against 60
- Risk, 55 against 45
- 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.
Reach MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +35
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Memory 0, inclusionAI's only build is the FP8 release at 573.78 GB, × 1.2 = 688.5 GB, above 256 GB, and no runtime's library has a build. Runtimes 25, Released model code in Transformers 5.22.2 (bailing_hybrid), vLLM 0.33.0 (BailingMoeV3ForCausalLM, with ling3 tool and reasoning parsers), SGLang 0.5.23 (bailing_moe_v3.py, its bailing_hybrid config and MTP module) and llama.cpp b12242 (bailingmoe3), and Ollama, credited through its pinned llama.cpp as on the Ling-3.0-tiny listing: v0.40.16 sets LLAMA_CPP_VERSION to b12177. Builds 10, the release is FP8, the one quantised precision inclusionAI publishes for it. Terms 15, MIT in the card's metadata, with no use policy or other terms added on the card or in the repository. Download 10, the Hub API's model info gives gated false on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and no terms to accept. Hosted 0, the Hub API's provider mapping is empty for this repository on 10 November 2026. 0 + 25 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 60.
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 95
Memory 30, OpenBMB's own IQ4_XS GGUF is 0.64 GB, 1.54 GB with the 0.90 GB vision projector, and 1.54 GB × 1.2 = 1.9 GB, which fits 16 GB with room to spare. Runtimes 25, MiniCPMV4_7ForConditionalGeneration in vLLM's registry at v0.33.0, the minicpmv4_7 model type in SGLang's minicpmv.py at v0.5.23, the minicpmv4_7 model in Transformers at v5.22.2, a MiniCPM-V 4.7 guide and conversion code in llama.cpp at b12242, and an openbmb/minicpm-v4.7:1b tag in OpenBMB's namespace on Ollama, read as the 35B-A3B listing's is. Builds 15, OpenBMB publishes AWQ, GPTQ and int4 safetensors builds and a GGUF repository from IQ3_XS to F16, so quantised builds at two precisions or more. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata and as the LICENSE of OpenBMB's MiniCPM-V repository, an OSI licence. Download 10, gated is false on the main repository and on the GGUF, AWQ, GPTQ and int4 repositories, so the files download with no account or terms. Hosted 0, Hugging Face lists no inference provider for the model (an empty provider mapping on 10 November 2026), and no provider's own list was read. 30 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 95.
Risk MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +10
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 45
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25), less 10 because the card's documented vLLM command passes --trust-remote-code, which runs the repository's configuration_bailing_moe_v3.py, since vLLM 0.33.0 registers no bailing_hybrid config of its own. Provenance 15, files in the inclusionAI organisation that inclusion-ai.org links to, per the Ling-3.0-tiny listing (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results for the model on its card or in the training-content summary. Agent guidance 0, the card has nothing on prompt injection, refusals or safeguards, and inclusionAI publishes no guardrail probe for this model as it did for Ling 3.0. Licence risk 15, MIT with no use policy, no field-of-use limits, no threshold and no clause letting inclusionAI change or revoke it. Security programme 0, www.inclusion-ai.org answers 404 for security.txt on 10 November 2026, and the Ling-3.0-tiny listing found no SECURITY.md or disclosure policy in the inclusionAI .github repository. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
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.
Agent interface MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +10
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (6,042 characters), which handles tools, the thinking switch and preserved reasoning. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says how tools are declared (JSON in <tools>) and how calls come back (<tool_call>name with <arg_key> and <arg_value> pairs). Trained tool calling 20, the template tells the model it may call one or more functions and loops over every entry in an assistant message's tool_calls, and the card reports gains on agentic benchmarks, AA-Briefcase and AutomationBench-AA among them. Structured output 0, the card doesn't document JSON or JSON Schema output. Reasoning control 0, the card documents turning thinking on or off per request with chat_template_kwargs enable_thinking, and names the ling3 reasoning parser, but doesn't say where the reasoning text comes back. Context 10, 262,144 tokens natively in config.json (max_position_embeddings 262144, rope_scaling null) and per SGLang's cookbook. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.
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-3.1-flash-1019 +8
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 56
Model card 11, Intended use (complex reasoning, multi-step tasks and agentic workflows), architecture, parameters (560B total, 25B active) and context (1M claimed) are on the card. Training data 15, the training-content summary the card links names the source categories (Common Crawl and other public datasets, commercially licensed data, the Ant Spider crawler, synthetic data), the size band (over 10 trillion text tokens), data collected up to about July 2026 and the filtering, without listing datasets with sizes. Last change 20, the newest commit, on 4 November 2026, edited the card, six days before this check, and the files went up on 27 October. Responsiveness 0, Neither of the 2 discussions that aren't pull requests (both opened on 27 October 2026) has a reply from an inclusionAI member. Version policy 5, the update went into a repository of its own and Ling-3.1-flash and Ling 3.0 stay in theirs. File health 5, the card states a 1M-token context while config.json gives 262,144 with no rope scaling, and its serve commands name the earlier repository as the model path. 11 + 15 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 5 = 56.
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.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 95 | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +35 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 45 | 55 | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 70 | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 48 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +8 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 54.8/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | 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 | 2026-11-04 | 2026-10-30 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
Verdicts
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
inclusionAI's newest flagship, a 560B hybrid mixture of experts under plain MIT that vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp run in released versions. It ships only as 574 GB of FP8, so it needs a multi-GPU server. The card overstates the context, documents little about tool calls, and has 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-3.1-flash-1019
- Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later on 8 H200 or 4 GB300 GPUs, per the card, and use this repository's name as the model path, not the earlier one the card's command shows
- With vLLM pass
--trust-remote-code,--tool-call-parser ling3and--reasoning-parser ling3 - Set
chat_template_kwargsenable_thinkingfalse for direct answers. Reasoning comes back inreasoning_contentper SGLang's cookbook - Plan on 262,144 tokens of context. The 1M figure needs the YaRN override in SGLang's cookbook
- Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20, per the card
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
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-3.1-flash-1019 or MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B?
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 leads on documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Ling-3.1-flash-1019 or MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Cola2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cola2 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Devstral Small 2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Devstral Small 2 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-20b vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 3B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 8B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling-Small vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Inkling vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kronos vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna M.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LBS-27B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs LongCat-2.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Mistral Large 4
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs occamy-1.0
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs ZAYA1-8B
- LongCat-2.5 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL 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 Nanbeige4.2-3B
- 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 North Mini Code 1.0
- 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 OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- 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 SenseNova-Loop-9B-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 Step 3.7 Flash
- 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
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019-vs-minicpm-v-4-7-1b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/ling-3-1-flash-1019.json·/api/v1/tools/minicpm-v-4-7-1b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ling-3-1-flash-1019 minicpm-v-4-7-1b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ling-3-1-flash-1019", "b": "minicpm-v-4-7-1b"}at/mcp, no key