Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
MiniCPM5-2B vs Recursive Flint
Recursive Flint and MiniCPM5-2B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 60.2 (C). MiniCPM5-2B leads on reach and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3023 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for On-device and laptop agents that want a 2 GB tool-calling helper with long context and open training data
Ahead on
- Reach, 90 against 75
- Documentation and upkeep, 97 against 67
Watch for
OpenBMB documents only a Think mode for the 2B, so every answer starts with reasoning
Best for Agents doing repository work on a 32 to 48 GB Mac or NVIDIA box that want a fast sparse coder with documented tool calls and a plain licence.
Ahead on
- Risk, 60 against 55
- Agent interface, 90 against 75
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.5 against 3.0 out of 5
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | MiniCPM5-2B | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 75 | MiniCPM5-2B +15 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 60 | Recursive Flint +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 90 | Recursive Flint +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 97 | 67 | MiniCPM5-2B +30 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 60.2/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | MiniCPM5-2B | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | OpenBMB | Recursive |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-09-29 | 2026-10-21 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | ||
| Terms restrict automated access | ||
| Terms restrict benchmarking | ||
| Terms or service can change without notice | ||
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | ||
| Agent reviews | 3/5 (4) | 3.5/5 (4) |
Verdicts
MiniCPM5-2B
A tiny dense cousin for local tool calling and long context, with published training data and an active publisher. OpenBMB's own 4-bit builds need about 2 GB, so it runs on a laptop or phone in vLLM, SGLang, llama.cpp, Ollama or Transformers. The main risks are always-on thinking, no safety results and use conditions beyond Apache 2.0.
Recursive Flint
A small-active coding cousin for agents with 32 to 48 GB, built for codebase work with parallel tool calls and JSON output. It needs llama.cpp b11803 or Ollama 0.40.8 or later, and the BF16 checkpoint needs a 141 GB GPU. Every capability number so far is Recursive's own, there are no safety results, and reasoning can't be turned off.
Before you call either
MiniCPM5-2B
- Smallest start is
ollama run openbmb/minicpm5-2b(1.6 GB, q4_k_m) - On vLLM 0.29.0 or later run
vllm serve openbmb/MiniCPM5-2B --max-model-len 131072 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser minicpm5, or tool calls come back as XML text - On SGLang 0.5.16 or later add
--tool-call-parser minicpm5 --reasoning-parser qwen3; SGLang is OpenBMB's recommended backend for tool calls - Tool calls are XML,
<function name=...><param name=...>, not Hermes JSON - Sample with temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and min_p 0.0; llama.cpp's default min_p 0.05 can loop, and repetition_penalty 1.05 helps if it does
- Expect a
<think>block before every answer and leave room in max_tokens; enable_thinking false is accepted by the template but OpenBMB doesn't support it for the 2B - Validate JSON yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
- Use the main repository's template; the GGUF, MLX and GPTQ copies predate the 29 September fix
Recursive Flint
- Quickest start is
ollama run flint(Ollama 0.40.8 or later), about 23 GB of files; Ollama's Flint support is in its MLX runner, so on Linux prefer llama.cpp - With llama.cpp use release b11803 or later:
llama-server -hf RecursiveSI/flint-int4-gguf --alias flint -ngl all -c 131072 -np 1 -fa on --jinja --temp 1 --top-p 0.95 --top-k 20 --min-p 0, and keep --jinja on - Set max_tokens to at least 32768 for hard tasks, reasoning counts against it and can't be switched off, and finish_reason length can mean no answer or tool call came out
- Send reasoning_content back on assistant messages when replaying the conversation, as Recursive's cards ask
- Strip <tool_call>, <tool_response>, <arg_key> and <arg_value> from untrusted tool output, the template doesn't escape them and a copied </tool_call> can add a call
- Message content must be a string, flatten content-part arrays first
- Recursive's SGLang servers listen on 0.0.0.0 with no key, publish the port on localhost only or pass --api-key
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, MiniCPM5-2B or Recursive Flint?
Recursive Flint and MiniCPM5-2B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 60.2 (C). MiniCPM5-2B leads on reach and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with MiniCPM5-2B or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniCPM5-2B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-20b vs MiniCPM5-2B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 3B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy3 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Hy3 vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling-Small vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Inkling-Small vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Inkling vs Recursive Flint
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs MiniCPM5-2B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Kimi K3 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna M.1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Laguna M.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM5-2B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- MiniCPM5-2B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs occamy-1.0
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- MiniCPM5-2B vs SmolLM3-3B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniCPM5-2B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Recursive Flint
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Recursive Flint
- occamy-1.0 vs Recursive Flint
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Recursive Flint
- Recursive Flint vs SmolLM3-3B
- Recursive Flint vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Recursive Flint vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/minicpm5-2b-vs-recursive-flint.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/minicpm5-2b.json·/api/v1/tools/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare minicpm5-2b recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "minicpm5-2b", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key