Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
Nanbeige4.3-33B scores 60.8 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. 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 Teams with a multi-GPU server that want an MIT-licensed flagship for long agent runs and coding
No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.
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 with a 32 GB GPU (INT4) or more, or the 128 GB reference machine at BF16, that want an Apache-tagged 33B model for long coding and tool loops.
Ahead on
- Reach, 80 against 60
- Risk, 60 against 45
- Agent interface, 85 against 60
Watch for
Independent results so far are Artificial Analysis's alone (Intelligence Index v5.0 20.4, Terminal-Bench 4.0 29.8 per cent); the card's other agentic numbers are Nanbeige's own runs
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 Nanbeige4.3-33B +25
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.
Nanbeige4.3-33B 85
The chat template earns 20, Jinja in tokenizer_config.json. The tool-calling format earns 25, with the XML call format in the template and the qwen3_coder parser named for vLLM and SGLang. Trained tool calling earns 20, several calls per turn in the template. Structured output earns 0, as nothing mentions it. Reasoning control earns 10, thinking switched per request with the qwen3 reasoning parser named. Context earns 10 for 512K set in the config with no scaling.
Reach Nanbeige4.3-33B +20
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.
Nanbeige4.3-33B 80
Memory earns 20, since Nanbeige's INT4 build is 22.57 GB, about 27 GB with a fifth added, which fits 32 GB. Runtimes earn 20 from released vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp, which all run the Llama architecture, and Ollama and LM Studio have no build. Builds earn 15 for Nanbeige's INT4, INT8 and FP8 builds of 31 October 2026. Terms earn 15 for Apache 2.0 with nothing added, though only the metadata names it. Download earns 10, with no gate. Hosted earns 0, as no provider or Nanbeige API serves it.
Risk Nanbeige4.3-33B +15
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.
Nanbeige4.3-33B 60
File safety earns 25, safetensors only and no repository code, so the card's trust_remote_code has nothing to run. Provenance earns 15, the lab's own organisation as its arXiv report links it, with a hash for every file. Safety evaluation earns 0 and agent guidance 0, since neither card says anything on either. Licence risk keeps all 15 under Apache 2.0. The security programme earns 5 for BOSS Zhipin's security response centre, which isn't linked to the model.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Nanbeige4.3-33B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 80 | Nanbeige4.3-33B +20 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 45 | 60 | Nanbeige4.3-33B +15 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 85 | Nanbeige4.3-33B +25 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 56 | even |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 54.8/100 | C 60.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Nanbeige4.3-33B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | inclusionAI (Ant Group) | Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 (Hub metadata only; the repository has no LICENSE file) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-11-04 | 2026-10-31 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
How the scores have moved
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
No score change since it was listed.
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.
Nanbeige4.3-33B
A dense 33B Llama-architecture cousin for long agentic coding and office tasks, with per-request thinking, XML tool calls that stock vLLM and SGLang parse, and 512K of context. Nanbeige's INT4 build needs about 27 GB. Artificial Analysis's first independent runs give it 20.4 on its Intelligence Index, and there are no safety results, training data notes or licence file.
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
Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Serve with
vllm serve Nanbeige/Nanbeige4.3-33B --enable-auto-tool-choice --reasoning-parser qwen3 --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, as the card says, or SGLang with the same two parsers - On a 32 GB GPU use Nanbeige/Nanbeige4.3-33B-INT4 with the same vLLM or SGLang flags; the INT8 and FP8 builds need about 43 GB
- Keep
tool_call_formatat its defaultxml, since qwen3_coder parses that format; thejsonoption writes Hermes-style JSON calls, which need a different parser such as vLLM's hermes - Pass
chat_template_kwargs{"preserve_thinking": true}for multi-turn tool use and coding, and{"enable_thinking": false}to skip reasoning, as the card recommends - Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and up to 65,536 new tokens for agent work, and temperature 0.6 for reasoning and chat, per the card
- Send your own system prompt, since without one the template injects a Chinese identity line, or a Chinese tool-expert prompt when tools are passed
- Send one system message at the start only, as the template raises an error for a later one
- In plain Transformers pass
use_cache=Trueto generate, since config.json and generation_config.json set it false; trust_remote_code isn't needed
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Ling-3.1-flash-1019 or Nanbeige4.3-33B?
Nanbeige4.3-33B scores 60.8 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories.
Other comparisons with Ling-3.1-flash-1019 or Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-120b vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-20b vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling-Small vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Inkling vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kolibri-1 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kronos vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna M.1 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LBS-27B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- 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 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 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 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 SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- 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
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Mistral Large 4 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs occamy-1.0
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Recursive Flint
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019-vs-nanbeige-4-3-33b.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/nanbeige-4-3-33b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ling-3-1-flash-1019 nanbeige-4-3-33b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ling-3-1-flash-1019", "b": "nanbeige-4-3-33b"}at/mcp, no key