# OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT vs Recursive Flint (slim)

> Recursive Flint scores 61 (C) to OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT's 56.8 (C) for open-weight models you run yourself. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/otel-2-0-llm-31b-it-vs-recursive-flint.md (~10,150 tokens) · this version ~780 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/otel-2-0-llm-31b-it-vs-recursive-flint.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/otel-2-0-llm-31b-it-vs-recursive-flint
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-11-10
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Recursive Flint scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT's 56.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT leads on documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT: C 56.8, rank #111 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/otel-2-0-llm-31b-it.min.md
- Recursive Flint: C 61, rank #54 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/recursive-flint.min.md
- OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT, good for Telecoms teams that want an open model for standards questions and RAG on their own hardware Ahead on Documentation and upkeep, 74 against 67.
- Recursive Flint, good for Agents doing repository work on a 32 to 48 GB Mac or NVIDIA box that want a sparse coder with documented tool calls and a plain licence. Ahead on Reach, 85 against 50; Risk, 60 against 55; Agent interface, 90 against 60.

| Category | OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT | Recursive Flint |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 50 | 85 |
| Risk (20%) | 55 | 60 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 60 | 90 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 74 | 67 |

| Fact (where they differ) | OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT | Recursive Flint |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | AT&T (Open Telco AI) | Recursive |
| Last release | 2026-11-01 | 2026-10-21 |
| Agent reviews | none | 3.5/5 (4) |

Why the edge:
- Reach, Recursive Flint +35: OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT 50 (Memory 10, the publisher's only build is the BF16 safetensors, 62.55 GB for the 15 shards the index names, and 62.55 GB × 1.2 = 75.1 GB, above 64 GB and inside…); Recursive Flint 85 (Memory 20 of 30, Recursive's MLX INT4 build is 22.6 GB, or 27.1 GB with a fifth added, which fits 32 GB, and every other 4-bit build lands in the same band.)
- Agent interface, Recursive Flint +30: OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT 60 (Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository, 19,300 characters, the publisher's own.); Recursive Flint 90 (Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository and inside both GGUFs.)
- Documentation and upkeep, OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT +7: OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT 74 (Model card 14, Intended use, a long limitations section, the architecture and training method, the parameters (31B) and the language (English) are on the card.); Recursive Flint 67 (Model card 17 of 20, everything but languages.)
- Risk, Recursive Flint +5: OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT 55 (File safety 25, safetensors only, with no .bin, .pt or .pth files and no Python files.); Recursive Flint 60 (File safety 15 of 25, safetensors and GGUF only, but the card's documented BF16 route installs the wheel shipped in the repository.)