Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Recursive Flint vs Step 3.7 Flash
Recursive Flint scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Step 3.7 Flash's 59.8 (C), and leads in every scored category. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 6359 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best 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 70
- Risk, 60 against 45
- Agent interface, 90 against 85
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 39
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Best for Teams with a GPU server or a provider account that want an open, long-context agent model with vision
No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.
Watch for
About 131 GB to run at 4 bits with images, over a 128 GB machine's share
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.
Documentation and upkeep Recursive Flint +28
Recursive Flint 67
Model card 17 of 20, everything but languages. Training data 10, a general description of the mix with a June 2026 cut-off. Last change 20, released 13 days ago. Responsiveness 5, Recursive answered one of 31 discussions, on release day. Version policy 5, a first release. File health 10, the files agree with each other and the card, and no broken-file report waits.
Step 3.7 Flash 39
Model card 14, Intended use, the architecture, the parameters, the context and the language (in the metadata) are on the card. Training data 0, Nothing on the card about the training data. Last change 10, the last commit, on 3 June 2026, fixed the modelling code, 160 days before this check and within 180. Responsiveness 0, none of the 11 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (29 May to 24 June 2026) has a reply from a stepfun-ai member, counted on 10 November by author flags and dates with a script, text not read. Version policy 5, Step-3.5-Flash stays in its own repositories and 3.7 came out in new ones, with no dated note on the older cards that we read. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture and the context, and June commits fixed the modelling code. 14 + 0 + 10 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 39.
Reach Recursive Flint +15
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. Runtimes 25 of 25, released llama.cpp (b11803), Ollama 0.40.8, LM Studio's catalogue, Transformers v5.21 and vLLM v0.33.0 run it, while SGLang has only a development image. Builds 15, MLX INT4 plus Q4_1 and NVFP4 GGUFs from Recursive. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 with nothing added. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, OpenRouter lists a free endpoint with Recursive as its provider, but it wasn't serving on 3 November 2026, with 0 per cent uptime over the last day.
Step 3.7 Flash 70
Memory 5, the smallest build at 4 bits is StepFun's IQ4_XS GGUF, 104.99 GB with the 3.97 GB projector, and 108.96 GB × 1.2 = 130.8 GB, over what the reference machine can give a model and within 256 GB. The IQ3 and Q3 builds are below 4 bits and aren't read. Runtimes 20, Released vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23 and Transformers 5.22.2 have the step3p7 model, and llama.cpp b12242 has the architecture, with StepFun's own GGUF. Four at 5 each, and the card documents all four. Builds 15, StepFun publishes GGUF at five quantised precisions, an FP8 build and an NVFP4 build. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata and its licence section, an OSI licence with nothing added. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for all four repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 5, StepFun's own API serves it, per the card and our StepFun API listing, and Featherless and DeepInfra are live for it on Hugging Face. 5 + 20 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 5 = 70.
Risk Recursive Flint +15
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. Provenance 15, the files are in the RecursiveSI organisation that Recursive's own engine downloads from, with a checksum on every file. Safety evaluation 0, none on the cards or in the announcement post. Agent guidance 10, the card and serving README say to enforce permissions around tool use and to strip tool tags from untrusted tool output, but there's no trained instruction hierarchy. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0. Security programme 5, a reporting address on the card and a private reporting route for the engine, with no public advisories yet.
Step 3.7 Flash 45
File safety 15, safetensors and GGUF only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the stepfun-ai organisation, which the card's StepFun platform and model page belong to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations section and gives no guidance on prompt injection, instruction priority, refusals or safeguards. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, threshold or change clause. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw on the card, and our StepFun API listing found no security.txt, bug bounty or disclosure policy. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
Agent interface Recursive Flint +5
Recursive Flint 90
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository and inside both GGUFs. Tool-calling format 25, Recursive's serving README documents how tools go in, how calls come back and the flint parser. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn. Structured output 15, response_format with JSON Schema is documented. Reasoning control 0, the model decides when to reason and Recursive says there's no switch or budget. Context 10, 262,144 tokens with no position scaling.
Step 3.7 Flash 85
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (5,723 characters). Tool-calling format 25, the card names the parser to use in two runtimes, step3p5 in vLLM (with auto tool choice) and in SGLang, and both ship Step parsers in a release. Trained tool calling 20, the card presents tool orchestration as a main use, with multi-turn results, and the template renders every call in a turn. Structured output 0, Nothing on the card about JSON or schema-constrained output for the weights. Reasoning control 10, the template has a reasoning_effort setting and keeps reasoning_content, and the card names the step3p5 reasoning parser for vLLM and SGLang, which returns the reasoning apart from the answer. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, and 262,144 positions in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Recursive Flint | Step 3.7 Flash | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 85 | 70 | Recursive Flint +15 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 60 | 45 | Recursive Flint +15 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 90 | 85 | Recursive Flint +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 67 | 39 | Recursive Flint +28 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 59.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Recursive Flint | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Recursive | StepFun |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 (metadata and card; no LICENSE file) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-21 | 2026-06-03 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 3.5/5 (4) | none |
How the scores have moved
Step 3.7 Flash
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
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. Released llama.cpp, Ollama, vLLM and Transformers run it, while Recursive's free OpenRouter endpoint wasn't serving on 3 November 2026. Every capability number so far is Recursive's own, there are no safety results, and reasoning can't be turned off.
Step 3.7 Flash
A capable open agent model with a clean licence, every kind of build and four released runtimes. Two things hold it back: it's a little too big for a 128 GB machine at 4 bits, whatever the card says, and StepFun has gone quiet on the repository since June. No safety results, limitations or data description.
Before you call either
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
- Check OpenRouter's endpoints list before calling recursive/flint-v1.0:free, since its only endpoint (Recursive, BF16) showed 0 per cent uptime over the last day on 3 November 2026
- vLLM needs v0.33.0 or later and Transformers v5.21 or later; released SGLang has no Flint model
Step 3.7 Flash
- On a 128 GB machine the 4-bit GGUF won't fit with a working context. Use StepFun's API or a provider, or a server
- On vLLM or SGLang pass
--tool-call-parser step3p5 --reasoning-parser step3p5 - The card's commands pass trust-remote-code. Released Transformers 5.22.2 has the model built in if you'd rather not run the repository's code
- For llama.cpp load the mmproj file from StepFun's GGUF repository for image input
- StepFun's API has two hosts. Use the one where your key was issued,
api.stepfun.aiorapi.stepfun.com - The same model is on our StepFun API listing, with prices and terms
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Recursive Flint or Step 3.7 Flash?
Recursive Flint scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Step 3.7 Flash's 59.8 (C), and leads in every scored category.
Other comparisons with Recursive Flint or Step 3.7 Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Arete-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Arete-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Cola2 vs Recursive Flint
- Cola2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Devstral Small 2 vs Recursive Flint
- Devstral Small 2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Recursive Flint
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs Step 3.7 Flash
- gpt-oss-20b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-20b vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Hy3 vs Recursive Flint
- Hy3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Inkling-Small vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling-Small vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Inkling vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling vs Step 3.7 Flash
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Recursive Flint
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kimi K3 vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kronos vs Recursive Flint
- Kronos vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna M.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna M.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LBS-27B vs Recursive Flint
- LBS-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-1.7B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-1.7B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LongCat-2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- LongCat-2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL vs Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Mistral Large 4 vs Recursive Flint
- Mistral Large 4 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Recursive Flint
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Recursive Flint
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Recursive Flint
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- occamy-1.0 vs Recursive Flint
- occamy-1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Recursive Flint
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT vs Recursive Flint
- OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Recursive Flint vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Recursive Flint vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- 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)
- Recursive Flint vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Recursive Flint vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Recursive Flint vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Recursive Flint vs ZAYA1-8B
- Ripple-65B Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- SmolLM3-3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Spark-X2.6-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Step 3.7 Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Step 3.7 Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/recursive-flint-vs-step-3-7-flash.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/recursive-flint.json·/api/v1/tools/step-3-7-flash.json - From a terminal
anchor compare recursive-flint step-3-7-flash(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "recursive-flint", "b": "step-3-7-flash"}at/mcp, no key