Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Recursive Flint
Nanbeige4.3-33B and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on reach, agent interface 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 3341 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Agents with about 96 GB of GPU memory, or the 128 GB reference machine, that want an Apache-tagged 33B model for long coding and tool loops and can wait for independent results.
No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.
Watch for
No independent benchmark result yet; every agentic number on the card is Nanbeige's own run
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
- Reach, 75 against 55
- Agent interface, 90 against 85
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 56
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Nanbeige4.3-33B | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 55 | 75 | Recursive Flint +20 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 60 | 60 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 90 | Recursive Flint +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 67 | Recursive Flint +11 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Nanbeige4.3-33B | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin) | Recursive |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 (Hub metadata only; the repository has no LICENSE file) | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-24 | 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 | none | 3.5/5 (4) |
Verdicts
Nanbeige4.3-33B
A dense 33B Llama-architecture cousin for long agentic coding and office tasks, with per-request thinking, XML tool calls that stock vLLM and SGLang parse, and 512K of context. It needs about 96 GB at BF16, as Nanbeige ships no quantised build. Its agentic results so far are Nanbeige's own, with no safety results, training data notes or licence file.
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
Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Serve with
vllm serve Nanbeige/Nanbeige4.3-33B --enable-auto-tool-choice --reasoning-parser qwen3 --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, as the card says, or SGLang with the same two parsers - Keep
tool_call_formatat its defaultxml, since qwen3_coder parses that format; thejsonoption writes Hermes-style JSON calls, which need a different parser such as vLLM's hermes - Pass
chat_template_kwargs{"preserve_thinking": true}for multi-turn tool use and coding, and{"enable_thinking": false}to skip reasoning, as the card recommends - Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and up to 65,536 new tokens for agent work, and temperature 0.6 for reasoning and chat, per the card
- Send your own system prompt, since without one the template injects a Chinese identity line, or a Chinese tool-expert prompt when tools are passed
- Send one system message at the start only, as the template raises an error for a later one
- In plain Transformers pass
use_cache=Trueto generate, since config.json and generation_config.json set it false; trust_remote_code isn't needed
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, Nanbeige4.3-33B or Recursive Flint?
Nanbeige4.3-33B and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Nanbeige4.3-33B or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-20b vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy3 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Hy3 vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling-Small vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Inkling-Small vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Inkling vs Recursive Flint
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Kimi K3 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
- Kronos vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Kronos vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna M.1 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Laguna M.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs occamy-1.0
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB 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/nanbeige-4-3-33b-vs-recursive-flint.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/nanbeige-4-3-33b.json·/api/v1/tools/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare nanbeige-4-3-33b recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "nanbeige-4-3-33b", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key