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

Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Recursive Flint

Recursive Flint scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Qwen3-Coder-Next's 57.6 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Qwen3-Coder-Next 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-Coder-Next C

Best for Agents that want a local coding model for long tool-calling loops on a single 64 GB to 128 GB machine.

Ahead on

  • Reach, 85 against 75

Watch for

No LICENSE file anywhere and a broken licence link on the card

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 50
  • Agent interface, 90 against 75
  • Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 41

Also in its favour

  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.5 against 2.8 out of 5

Watch for

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

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runQwen3-Coder-NextRecursive FlintEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258575Qwen3-Coder-Next +10
Risk20%205060Recursive Flint +10
Agent interface10%107590Recursive Flint +15
Documentation and upkeep10%104167Recursive Flint +26
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 57.6/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactQwen3-Coder-NextRecursive 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 release2026-02-032026-10-21
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 reviews2.8/5 (4)3.5/5 (4)

Verdicts

Qwen3-Coder-Next

A fast coding cousin for agent harnesses, with 3B active parameters and tool calling trained across many scaffold formats for Claude Code, Cline or Qwen Code loops. Alibaba's 4-bit GGUF needs about 58 GB, fitting one 64 GB machine, and two providers host it. The main risk is neglect, with no change since February, no replies 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-Coder-Next

  1. Quickest start is ollama run qwen3-coder-next (Q4_K_M, 52 GB of files)
  2. On our reference machine Alibaba's Q8_0 GGUF (84.8 GB, about 102 GB in use) also fits, run with llama-server -m Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q8_0/Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q8_0-00001-of-00004.gguf --jinja -ngl 99 -fa on -c 131072
  3. Serve with vllm serve Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-Next --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder (vLLM 0.15.0 or later), using the built-in parser rather than the repository's qwen3coder_tool_parser_vllm.py, which fails to import on newer vLLM per discussion 36
  4. The card's commands use tensor parallel 2 though the text says 4 GPUs, and it suggests cutting the context to 32,768 if the server fails to start
  5. There's no thinking mode, so don't pass enable_thinking or wait for reasoning_content
  6. Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 40
  7. The GGUF card's llama.cpp example path omits the quant from the file name; the real files are named like Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q4_K_M-00001-of-00004.gguf
  8. Validate any JSON it returns, since structured output isn't documented

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-Coder-Next or Recursive Flint?

Recursive Flint scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Qwen3-Coder-Next's 57.6 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Qwen3-Coder-Next leads on reach.

Other comparisons with Qwen3-Coder-Next 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.