Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
Spark-X2.6-4B 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 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 51
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 want a tiny local model for tool loops and long documents on a laptop, CPU or small GPU.
Ahead on
- Reach, 85 against 60
- Risk, 50 against 45
- Agent interface, 70 against 60
Watch for
No safety results and no agent or prompt-injection guidance
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 Spark-X2.6-4B +25
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.
Spark-X2.6-4B 85
Memory 30, SparkLLM's Q4_K_M GGUF is 3.19 GB, about 3.8 GB with a fifth added, which fits 8 GB. Runtimes 15 of 25, released llama.cpp, SGLang (to v0.5.23) and Ollama run the spark2_5 architecture X2.6 keeps, while vLLM needs SparkLLM's plugin, Transformers needs the repository's code and LM Studio has no catalogue entry. Builds 15, SparkLLM publishes FP8, INT8, INT4 and GGUF builds. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 with nothing added, on its own base. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, no provider or SparkLLM API serves it.
Agent interface Spark-X2.6-4B +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.
Spark-X2.6-4B 70
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10 of 25, the format lives only in the template and the spark25 parser name only in the SGLang command. Trained tool calling 20, the template renders several calls in one turn. Structured output 0, not documented. Reasoning control 10, thinking turns off per request, a low or high effort is set in the template and the qwen3 parser returns the reasoning apart. Context 10, 1,048,576 tokens with no scaling.
Risk Spark-X2.6-4B +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.
Spark-X2.6-4B 50
File safety 15 of 25, safetensors and GGUF only, but the card's Transformers and vLLM routes run the repository's Python. Provenance 15, the files are in SparkLLM's own Hub organisation, which its GitHub docs name, and every file has a checksum, though neither organisation is verified and no company site was found. Safety evaluation 0 and agent guidance 0, none published. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0 that hasn't changed. Security programme 5 of 10, a private reporting route and email in SparkLLM's community repository, with no public advisories.
Documentation and upkeep Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +5
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.
Spark-X2.6-4B 51
Model card 11 of 20, intended use, parameters, context and languages, with no limitations, cut-off or architecture description of its own. Training data 0, the X2.6 card describes none. Last change 20, the card changed on 1 November 2026. Responsiveness 10, SparkLLM members answered 11 of 40 discussions. Version policy 5, X2.5 stays in place with no note. File health 5, the tokenizer config's 131,072 disagrees with the 1M context.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Spark-X2.6-4B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 85 | Spark-X2.6-4B +25 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 45 | 50 | Spark-X2.6-4B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 70 | Spark-X2.6-4B +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 51 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +5 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 54.8/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Spark-X2.6-4B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | inclusionAI (Ant Group) | SparkLLM (XHToken) |
| 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 | 2026-10-20 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | none | 3/5 (4) |
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.
Spark-X2.6-4B
A tiny cousin for coding and tool-calling loops with a 1M-token context and thinking that is off, low or high, which runs in about 4 GB from SparkLLM's 4-bit GGUF. Use llama.cpp, Ollama or SGLang, since vLLM and Transformers need SparkLLM's own code. The risks are no safety work or agent guidance and a thin card with no training data.
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
Spark-X2.6-4B
- Quickest start is
llama-server -hf XHToken/Spark-X2.6-4B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja, which needs llama.cpp b10828 or later, orollama run SparkLLM/Spark-X2.6-4B(8.2 GB, Ollama 0.34.1 or later) - For parsed tool calls serve it with SGLang 0.5.22 or later,
--tool-call-parser spark25 --reasoning-parser qwen3, since the calls come back as tool_call blocks with arg_key and arg_value pairs - Thinking is on by default. Pass
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse to turn it off, orreasoning_effortlow for short thinking; the template raises an error on any effort other than high or low - SparkLLM's recommended sampling is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k -1
- The template always opens with its own default system line, with the effort instruction, and puts your system message after the tool list
- The template raises an error if tool_call arguments are a JSON string, so pass them as an object
- Set the context yourself, the card's 1,048,576-token example needs far more memory than the weights
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Ling-3.1-flash-1019 or Spark-X2.6-4B?
Spark-X2.6-4B 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 Spark-X2.6-4B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-120b vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-20b vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling-Small vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Inkling vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kolibri-1 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kronos vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna M.1 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LBS-27B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- 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-1.5-397B
- 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 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 Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Mistral Large 4 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- occamy-1.0 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Recursive Flint vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ripple-65B Preview vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- SmolLM3-3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Spark-X2.6-4B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Spark-X2.6-4B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Spark-X2.6-4B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Spark-X2.6-4B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019-vs-spark-x2-6-4b.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/spark-x2-6-4b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ling-3-1-flash-1019 spark-x2-6-4b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ling-3-1-flash-1019", "b": "spark-x2-6-4b"}at/mcp, no key