Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B and Spark-X2.6-4B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). 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

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B C

Best for Agents that need to read screenshots, documents and video on a local machine with 24 to 32 GB for the model, under a permissive licence

Ahead on

  • Reach, 90 against 85
  • Risk, 55 against 50
  • Documentation and upkeep, 68 against 51

Watch for

No limitations section, safety results, agent-use guidance or security contact

Spark-X2.6-4B C

Best for Agents that want a tiny local model for tool loops and long documents on a laptop, CPU or small GPU.

No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.

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.

Documentation and upkeep MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +17

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 68

Model card 8, it covers intended use, architecture and parameters but not limitations, context length, languages or a knowledge cut-off. Training data 0, none described. Last change 20, a commit on 3 November 2026. Responsiveness 20, OpenBMB answered 8 of 12 discussions. Version policy 10, earlier versions keep their repositories and the changes are dated and described. File health 10, the files agree. 8 + 0 + 20 + 20 + 10 + 10 = 68.

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.

Reach MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +5

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 90

Memory 25, since OpenBMB's IQ4_XS GGUF with its vision projector is 19.6 GB and needs about 23.6 GB with the fifth added, which fits 24 GB, while its Q4_K_M GGUF, 4-bit safetensors builds and Ollama entry need 32 GB. Runtimes 25, from vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23, Transformers 5.18.0 and later, llama.cpp's own MiniCPM-V 4.7 support and OpenBMB's entry on Ollama. Builds 15, OpenBMB publishes FP8, three 4-bit safetensors builds and GGUF. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 with nothing added. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, no inference provider is mapped. 25 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 90.

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.

Risk MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +5

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 55

File safety 25, safetensors and GGUF only, no Python in the main repository and no remote code needed. Provenance 15, the files come from the openbmb organisation OpenBMB's GitHub README links to, with a SHA-256 for every weight file. Safety evaluation 0 and agent guidance 0, nothing published on either, and the card has no limitations section. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0. Security programme 0, no security.txt or SECURITY.md.

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.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runMiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3BSpark-X2.6-4BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%259085MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +5
Risk20%205550MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +5
Agent interface10%107070even
Documentation and upkeep10%106851MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +17
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactMiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3BSpark-X2.6-4B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorOpenBMBSparkLLM (XHToken)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-11-032026-10-20
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviewsnone3/5 (4)

How the scores have moved

Verdicts

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B

A vision-language cousin for images and video that fits a 24 to 32 GB machine from OpenBMB's own GGUF, under plain Apache 2.0, with a publisher that answers. The card says little about limits, training data or how tool calls come back, so test the tool format in your runtime before relying on it.

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

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B

  1. Start it with llama-server -hf openbmb/MiniCPM-V-4.7-35B-A3B-gguf:Q4_K_M --jinja, or ollama run openbmb/minicpm-v4.7:35b-a3b
  2. For image input in llama.cpp add mmproj-model-f16.gguf, or the 4x projector for more visual detail at a higher cost
  3. The GGUF files at the repository root have thinking off. Use the files in thinking/ when you want the trace
  4. With Transformers pass enable_thinking to apply_chat_template, and pass downsample_mode to both apply_chat_template and generate
  5. Use temperature 0.7, top_p 0.95 and top_k 100 in instruct mode, as the card recommends
  6. Check tool calls in your runtime first, since the card names no parser. The template uses the Qwen3.5 function-block format
  7. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

Spark-X2.6-4B

  1. Quickest start is llama-server -hf XHToken/Spark-X2.6-4B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja, which needs llama.cpp b10828 or later, or ollama run SparkLLM/Spark-X2.6-4B (8.2 GB, Ollama 0.34.1 or later)
  2. 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
  3. Thinking is on by default. Pass chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false to turn it off, or reasoning_effort low for short thinking; the template raises an error on any effort other than high or low
  4. SparkLLM's recommended sampling is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k -1
  5. The template always opens with its own default system line, with the effort instruction, and puts your system message after the tool list
  6. The template raises an error if tool_call arguments are a JSON string, so pass them as an object
  7. 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, MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B or Spark-X2.6-4B?

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B and Spark-X2.6-4B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C).

Other comparisons with MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B or Spark-X2.6-4B

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.