Sign in

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

occamy-1.0 vs Ripple-65B Preview

occamy-1.0 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ripple-65B Preview's 53.3 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Ripple-65B Preview leads on agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3674 open weights comparisons

occamy-1.0Accio (Accio-Lab) · Open-weight model C61/100#59 of 121 open-weight models Ripple-65B PreviewRicursive Intelligence · Open-weight model D53.3/100#103 of 121 open-weight models

Which one, for what

occamy-1.0 C

Best for Agents that want an Apache 2.0 mixture-of-experts model tuned for long tool-using tasks on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac.

Ahead on

  • Reach, 90 against 45
  • Documentation and upkeep, 74 against 49

Watch for

No safety results, prompt-injection guidance or security contact

Ripple-65B Preview D

Best for Teams with Blackwell GPUs or a DGX Spark who want an Apache 2.0 coding model to try for terminal and agentic coding work, and can run the publisher's code to serve it.

Ahead on

  • Agent interface, 75 against 70

Watch for

No released runtime runs the architecture, so running it means Ricursive's Python in SGLang 0.5.19 or Transformers' remote code

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 occamy-1.0 +45

occamy-1.0 90

Memory 25 of 30, Accio's MLX mxfp4 build is 18.4 GB, 22.1 GB with a fifth added, and its IQ4_XS GGUF needs 22.5 GB, both within 24 GB. Runtimes 25, the most the line gives, it keeps the base's qwen3_5_moe architecture, which llama.cpp, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers run in released versions, and Ollama v0.40.14 builds a llama.cpp (b11963) that has it. Builds 15, FP8, NVFP4, GGUF and MLX from Accio. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 like its base. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, no API or inference provider serves it. 25 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 90.

Ripple-65B Preview 45

Memory 10 of 30, the smallest 4-bit build is Ricursive's NVFP4 at 57.2 GB, 68.7 GB with a fifth added, which is over 64 GB and fits our reference machine. Runtimes 0, no released runtime runs the ricursive architecture with its own code; Ricursive's SGLang plugin and Transformers' remote code don't count. Builds 10, one quantised precision (NVFP4) from Ricursive. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 with nothing added. Download 10, not gated. Hosted 0, Ricursive serves no API, Hugging Face maps no provider, Together AI's page says coming soon, and GMI Cloud's and OpenRouter's pages weren't read.

Documentation and upkeep occamy-1.0 +25

occamy-1.0 74

Model card 14 of 20, languages and a knowledge cut-off are missing. Training data 15, the mix by type with token counts, the method and a published subset, without a cut-off. Last change 20, Accio's GGUF build card changed on 19 October 2026 and the main card on 2 October. Responsiveness 10, Accio answered 4 of 9 questions. Version policy 5, a first release with no files replaced. File health 10, the files agree with the card. 14 + 15 + 20 + 10 + 5 + 10 = 74.

Ripple-65B Preview 49

Model card 14 of 20, no limitations and no knowledge cut-off. Training data 5, a general description with token counts and no cut-off. Last change 20, released today. Responsiveness 0, no discussions yet, read as none answered. Version policy 5, a first release, with the NVFP4 checkpoint replaced in place on release day under a commit note. File health 5, tokenizer_config.json carries a second, tool-less chat template and a 131,072-token limit against the card's 1M.

Agent interface Ripple-65B Preview +5

occamy-1.0 70

Chat template 20, the base's Jinja template in the repository. Tool-calling format 10 of 25, the card names the parser but the format lives only in the template. Trained tool calling 20, trained on tool use with several calls a turn. Structured output 0, not documented. Reasoning control 10, enable_thinking per request and the card says to keep the returned reasoning content. Context 10, 262,144 tokens.

Ripple-65B Preview 75

Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository. Tool-calling format 25, Ricursive's server README says how tools are declared and calls come back, with the ripple parser in SGLang 0.5.19. Trained tool calling 20, one or more calls a turn and agentic-coding RL. Structured output 0, not documented. Reasoning control 0, the template has no thinking switch or effort levels. Context 10, long-context training at 2M-token sequences for a stated 1M.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runoccamy-1.0Ripple-65B PreviewEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%259045occamy-1.0 +45
Risk20%205555even
Agent interface10%107075Ripple-65B Preview +5
Documentation and upkeep10%107449occamy-1.0 +25
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100D 53.3/100

Facts side by side

Factoccamy-1.0Ripple-65B Preview
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorAccio (Accio-Lab)Ricursive Intelligence
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-10-022026-11-04
Terms last updatedno document linkednot read yet
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviews3/5 (4)none

How the scores have moved

occamy-1.0

Ripple-65B Preview

No score change since it was listed.

Verdicts

occamy-1.0

A Qwen3.6-35B-A3B fine-tuned for long agent work with tools, files and code, under plain Apache 2.0, and Accio's 4-bit builds run in about 23 GB. The main gaps are no safety results, agent guidance or security contact, and every benchmark figure is Accio's own.

Ripple-65B Preview

A dense 65B coding model from a new lab, pretrained from scratch and released today under Apache 2.0, that Ricursive says leads U.S. open-weight models on Terminal-Bench 2.1. Nobody has checked that yet, and the custom architecture runs only through Ricursive's own SGLang plugin on Blackwell GPUs, with a 57 GB NVFP4 build as the smallest.

Before you call either

occamy-1.0

  1. Serve with --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder on vLLM 0.19.0 or SGLang 0.5.10 and later
  2. BF16 is 70.2 GB, so on a 128 GB machine run it without the card's 8-way tensor parallelism
  3. Keep the whole assistant message, reasoning and tool calls included, in later turns, as the card says
  4. Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95, top_k 20 and presence_penalty 1.5
  5. With the GGUFs, NFC-normalise input text and read TOKENIZER.md, since the files store qwen2 pre-tokenizer metadata
  6. The base's MTP layer isn't in this checkpoint, Accio-Lab/occamy-1.0-MTP is an experimental separate head
  7. Ollama has no Occamy library entry, so load Accio's GGUF in Ollama 0.40.14 or later, which builds a llama.cpp with the qwen35moe architecture

Ripple-65B Preview

  1. Run Ricursive's launcher from inference/server with uv run --script serve.py on two B200 GPUs; it listens on 127.0.0.1:30000 with a 16K context by default
  2. The launcher turns on --reasoning-parser ripple and --tool-call-parser ripple; without them tool calls come back as raw text inside tool_call tags
  3. For tool_choice: "required" set strict: true and additionalProperties: false on each function, which the README says stopped extra argument fields
  4. Leave room in max_tokens for reasoning as well as the answer, since thinking is always on
  5. Use chat_template.jinja, not the template inside tokenizer_config.json, which has no tool support

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, occamy-1.0 or Ripple-65B Preview?

occamy-1.0 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ripple-65B Preview's 53.3 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Ripple-65B Preview leads on agent interface.

Other comparisons with occamy-1.0 or Ripple-65B Preview

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.

Get an auditSee a sample report