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

MiniCPM5-2B C

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

Recursive Flint C

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

CategoryWeight this runMiniCPM5-2BRecursive FlintEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%259075MiniCPM5-2B +15
Risk20%205560Recursive Flint +5
Agent interface10%107590Recursive Flint +15
Documentation and upkeep10%109767MiniCPM5-2B +30
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 60.2/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactMiniCPM5-2BRecursive Flint
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorOpenBMBRecursive
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-09-292026-10-21
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno 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 reviews3/5 (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

  1. Smallest start is ollama run openbmb/minicpm5-2b (1.6 GB, q4_k_m)
  2. 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
  3. On SGLang 0.5.16 or later add --tool-call-parser minicpm5 --reasoning-parser qwen3; SGLang is OpenBMB's recommended backend for tool calls
  4. Tool calls are XML, <function name=...><param name=...>, not Hermes JSON
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Validate JSON yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
  8. Use the main repository's template; the GGUF, MLX and GPTQ copies predate the 29 September fix

Recursive Flint

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Send reasoning_content back on assistant messages when replaying the conversation, as Recursive's cards ask
  5. 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
  6. Message content must be a string, flatten content-part arrays first
  7. 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

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.