Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
Ornith-1.5-397B scores 59 (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 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
Ahead on
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 36
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 A self-hosted frontier-scale coding agent on an 8-GPU server, where a clear licence file and an answering publisher aren't required
Ahead on
- Reach, 65 against 60
- Risk, 50 against 45
- Agent interface, 85 against 60
Watch for
Needs about 290 GB of memory at 4 bits and about 970 GB in BF16, so it doesn't fit the reference machine
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-1.5-397B +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.
Ornith-1.5-397B 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 turns thinking off per request with enable_thinking set to false 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.
Documentation and upkeep Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +20
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.
Ornith-1.5-397B 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, Ornith uploaded new shards to the NVFP4 build on 20 October 2026. Responsiveness 0, nobody from Ornith answered either of the 2 questions, or any of the six on its GGUF and NVFP4 builds. Version policy 0, every GGUF file and the NVFP4 shards were replaced in place in August with no note. File health 0, the card links a missing LICENSE, the two chat templates differ, and the NVFP4 build carries shards its index doesn't use.
Reach Ornith-1.5-397B +5
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.
Ornith-1.5-397B 65
Memory 0, since the smallest 4-bit build, Ollama's at 242 GB, needs about 290 GB with the fifth added, above the 256 GB band, and Ornith's own Q4_K_M GGUF and NVFP4 builds need about the same. Runtimes 25, the most the line gives, from vLLM 0.19.1, SGLang 0.5.9, Transformers 5.8.1, llama.cpp's qwen35moe architecture and Ollama's library, while LM Studio's entry is the base's. Builds 15, Ornith publishes FP8, NVFP4 and GGUF at several precisions. Terms 15, MIT as named in the card's metadata on 21 October 2026, 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.
Risk Ornith-1.5-397B +5
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.
Ornith-1.5-397B 50
File safety 25, safetensors and GGUF only and no Python in any of Ornith's repositories for this size, so the card's --trust-remote-code flag loads nothing from the repository. Provenance 15, the files come from the ornith-ai organisation Ornith's blog links to, with a SHA-256 for every weight file. Safety evaluation 0 and agent guidance 0, nothing published on either. Licence risk 10, MIT carries no policy, threshold or changeable terms, but the card's licence link is broken. Security programme 0, no security.txt, disclosure policy or security contact.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Ornith-1.5-397B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 65 | Ornith-1.5-397B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 45 | 50 | Ornith-1.5-397B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 85 | Ornith-1.5-397B +25 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 36 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +20 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 54.8/100 | C 59/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Ornith-1.5-397B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2026-11-04 | 2026-08-23 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | none | 2/5 (4) |
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.
Ornith-1.5-397B
Ornith's largest coding and terminal-agent model, with XML tool calls that vLLM and SGLang parse and 262,144 tokens of context. It needs about 290 GB even at 4 bits, so a multi-GPU server, not the 128 GB reference machine. The main risks are a missing licence file, no safety results, no publisher replies and files replaced without a note.
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
Ornith-1.5-397B
- Start it with the card's vLLM command at
--tensor-parallel-size 8, orollama run ornith-1.5:397bon a machine with about 300 GB of memory - 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
- When downloading the NVFP4 build, fetch only the files its model.safetensors.index.json names (the 25-shard set, 241.7 GB), not the eight extra shards
- Pin a revision when you download, since Ornith has replaced files in place
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Ling-3.1-flash-1019 or Ornith-1.5-397B?
Ornith-1.5-397B scores 59 (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 Ornith-1.5-397B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling-Small vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Inkling vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kolibri-1 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kronos vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna M.1 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LBS-27B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- 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 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 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-1.5-9B
- 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 Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Mistral Large 4 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- occamy-1.0 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019-vs-ornith-1-5-397b.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/ornith-1-5-397b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ling-3-1-flash-1019 ornith-1-5-397b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ling-3-1-flash-1019", "b": "ornith-1-5-397b"}at/mcp, no key