Deployment shortlist

Compact models to evaluate

A compact open-model shortlist spanning Gemma, MiMo, Qwen, and Llama, with checkpoint-size caveats and practical deployment evaluation questions.

What is included
Six selected compact or edge-focused profiles: four current candidates and two older baselines. Inclusion reflects the recorded model size or publisher positioning, not a verified single-GPU fit.
How this list is ordered
Alphabetical by model name. This is an editorial shortlist, not a quality, latency, or GPU-memory ranking.

Publisher sources are linked for every model. No independent performance scores have been measured. On smaller screens, scroll the table horizontally.

Compact models to evaluate. Alphabetical by model name. This is an editorial shortlist, not a quality, latency, or GPU-memory ranking.
ModelPublished sizeContextDeployment note
GoogleSource
11.95B256KA compact unified multimodal candidate; review each input modality separately.Compare model
GoogleSource
8B+128KEdge-focused; effective parameters omit part of the full weight scope.Compare model
MetaBaselineSource
~8B128KAn established baseline; inspect the checkpoint's access and license terms.Compare model
XiaomiSource
~9BUnder reviewThe distilled 9B checkpoint, distinct from the large Flash and Pro releases.Compare model
AlibabaBaselineSource
8.2B32K nativeAn older baseline with a recorded parameter count and weight arithmetic.Compare model
AlibabaSource
~9BUnder reviewA compact vision-language candidate for a controlled application test.Compare model

Define compact in terms of the job

A smaller nominal model can be a useful starting point, but the relevant budget includes serving state and the inputs your application accepts. Decide whether the first experiment needs text only, images, or audio. A model outside that modality scope is not a substitute merely because its name contains a smaller number.

Do not equate effective size with total storage

Some model names describe effective parameters or a rounded backbone count. Gemma E4B is an example where the full scope requires additional attention. Our profile notes explain the published boundary; pending memory estimates remain pending here.

Use the older entries as controls

Keep a reproducible baseline while testing newer candidates. Use the same prompt set, quality threshold, and output budget. Only after the checkpoint runs successfully under representative load should it receive a minimum or recommended GPU configuration.

Before you choose hardware

4-bit vs. 8-bit LLM inference: what actually changes? explains the next planning step. For the distinction between publisher specifications, calculations, and measurements, read the BenchGrid methodology.