Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Ornith-1.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
Ornith-1.5-9B and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on risk, 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 3023 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Local coding and terminal agents on a laptop or a single consumer GPU, where a clear licence file and an answering publisher aren't required
Ahead on
- Reach, 95 against 75
Watch for
No LICENSE file though the card links one, and no notice for the Qwen3.5 and Gemma 4 work it builds on
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 50
- Agent interface, 90 against 85
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 31
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.5 against 2.3 out of 5
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Ornith-1.5-9B | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 75 | Ornith-1.5-9B +20 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 60 | Recursive Flint +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 90 | Recursive Flint +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 31 | 67 | Recursive Flint +36 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Ornith-1.5-9B | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Ornith | Recursive |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-08-23 | 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 | 2.3/5 (4) | 3.5/5 (4) |
Verdicts
Ornith-1.5-9B
A small coding and terminal-agent cousin with thinking on by default, XML tool calls that vLLM and SGLang parse, and 262,144 tokens of context. Ornith's own 4-bit builds run in under 8 GB in most local runtimes. The main risk is an absent publisher, with no licence file, no safety results, files replaced without a note and no replies.
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
Ornith-1.5-9B
- Start it with
ollama run ornith-1.5:9b, orllama-server -hf ornith-ai/Ornith-1.5-9B-GGUFwith the Q4_K_M file - In vLLM pass
--enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_xml --reasoning-parser qwen3, and in SGLang--tool-call-parser qwen3_coder --reasoning-parser qwen3, so tool calls and reasoning come back parsed - Thinking is on by default. Send
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention - Pin which template your runtime loads, since chat_template.jinja keeps earlier reasoning and the tokenizer_config.json template drops it
- Use temperature 0.6, top_p 0.95, top_k 20 for coding and temperature 1.0 with presence_penalty 1.5 for general tasks, per the card
- Pin a revision when you download, since Ornith has replaced files in place, and add mmproj-Ornith-1.5-9B-BF16.gguf (0.9 GB) for image input in llama.cpp
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
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, Ornith-1.5-9B or Recursive Flint?
Ornith-1.5-9B and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on risk, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Ornith-1.5-9B or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy3 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Hy3 vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling-Small vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Inkling-Small vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Inkling vs Recursive Flint
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Kimi K3 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna M.1 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Laguna M.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Recursive Flint
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Recursive Flint
- occamy-1.0 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- occamy-1.0 vs Recursive Flint
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- 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/ornith-1-5-9b-vs-recursive-flint.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/ornith-1-5-9b.json·/api/v1/tools/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ornith-1-5-9b recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ornith-1-5-9b", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key