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

Qwen3.5-9B vs Recursive Flint

Recursive Flint and Qwen3.5-9B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 60.5 (C). Qwen3.5-9B leads on reach. 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

Qwen3.5-9B C

Best for Agents that want a small multimodal tool-calling cousin on a laptop or a 16 GB GPU, under a plain licence

Ahead on

  • Reach, 85 against 75

Watch for

No quantised build from Qwen itself

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 70
  • Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 34

Also in its favour

  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.5 against 2.5 out of 5

Watch for

No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runQwen3.5-9BRecursive FlintEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258575Qwen3.5-9B +10
Risk20%205560Recursive Flint +5
Agent interface10%107090Recursive Flint +20
Documentation and upkeep10%103467Recursive Flint +33
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 60.5/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactQwen3.5-9BRecursive Flint
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorAlibaba (Qwen team)Recursive
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-03-022026-10-21
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 reviews2.5/5 (4)3.5/5 (4)

Verdicts

Qwen3.5-9B

A small dense vision-language cousin with trained tool calling, switchable thinking and a 262,144-token context, for local agent subtasks. Ollama's 4-bit build needs about 8 GB and the BF16 files about 24 GB, in every major runtime. The main risk is neglect, with no file changes since March, no replies from Qwen to reports and no safety results.

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

Qwen3.5-9B

  1. Smallest start is ollama run qwen3.5:9b (6.6 GB, q4_k_m)
  2. On vLLM run vllm serve Qwen/Qwen3.5-9B --port 8000 --max-model-len 262144 --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, or tool calls come back as text
  3. Tool calls use the XML style <tool_call><function=name><parameter=x>, not Hermes JSON, so use the qwen3_coder parser and not hermes
  4. Thinking is on by default; pass chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks, since /nothink isn't supported
  5. There's no generation_config.json, so pass sampling yourself, temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95, top_k 20, presence_penalty 1.5 when thinking, or 0.7, 0.8, 20, 1.5 without
  6. Keep at least 128K of context when thinking, and turn on YaRN only beyond 262,144 tokens
  7. Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding

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, Qwen3.5-9B or Recursive Flint?

Recursive Flint and Qwen3.5-9B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 60.5 (C). Qwen3.5-9B leads on reach.

Other comparisons with Qwen3.5-9B 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.