Best Local LLMs for Coding (2026)
The best local LLM for coding depends on how much memory your machine has. This list ranks open-weight models you can run yourself, by independent benchmark runs and by developers who use them in coding agents.
Qwen3.8-27B
The model most local-coding write-ups now start from. Piotr Migdał at Quesma found the 17 GB 4-bit file matched the full 55 GB model on Terminal-Bench 2.1, and Simon Willison drove the Pi coding agent with it on a 128 GB M5 Max MacBook Pro and an NVIDIA DGX Spark. The catch is speed: Willison saw 15 to 30 tokens a second, and it thinks at its highest effort by default, so turn reasoning down first.
- Maker
- Alibaba (Qwen team)
- Size
- 27B parameters, dense
- Memory needed
- 17 GB at Q4_K_M; fits a 24 GB RTX 4090 with about 64k tokens of context
- License
- Apache 2.0
- Context window
- 262,144 tokens
- Runs in
- Ollama 0.32.12 or newer, LM Studio, llama.cpp (update it first)
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
For a 128 GB machine. It posted the best result in WonderRico's benchmark, 97 of 100 SWE-bench Verified tasks, on a single 96 GB RTX PRO 6000. Deepu K Sasidharan writes most of his Rust code with it on a 128 GB ASUS ROG Flow Z13 at about 46 tokens a second, though one feature took 130 minutes against 18 for Claude Opus. It is labelled an experimental preview, and its license is not Apache.
- Maker
- Alibaba (Qwen team)
- Size
- 125B, 6B active, plus a 51B n-gram embedding table
- Memory needed
- About 100 GB at UD-Q4_K_S with 180K context on a 128 GB M5 Max
- License
- Qwen Community License 1.0; hosted-model and AI-assistant vendors need a deal
- Context window
- 262,144 tokens
- Runs in
- llama.cpp, vLLM, SGLang; Ollama has only a 105 GB MLX build for Macs
Qwen3.6-27B
Georgi Gerganov, who wrote llama.cpp, said he used this almost daily for maintainer chores, at 100 to 150 tokens a second on an RTX 5090 and about 40 on an M2 Ultra. It is the older sibling of Qwen3.8-27B, with the same size and memory needs. On a Mac Studio M3 Ultra, TerminalBytes measured it at twice the newer model's speed in Ollama, which is the reason to still pick it.
- Maker
- Alibaba (Qwen team)
- Size
- 27B parameters, dense
- Memory needed
- Q4 on a 32 GB RTX 5090, Q8 on an M2 Ultra (Georgi Gerganov's setup)
- License
- Apache 2.0
- Context window
- 262,144 tokens
- Runs in
- Ollama (qwen3.6:27b, 18 to 19 GB), LM Studio, llama.cpp, vLLM
Gemma 4 31B
Google's largest open model is the one to try if you would rather not run a Qwen. In WonderRico's benchmark it scored 67 to 73 of 100 and needed fewer requests per solved task than most local models. Incept5's test on an Apple Silicon Mac had it ahead of Qwen3.5-27B, 59.4% to 42.2%. Its tool calling was broken at launch and fixed later, so use current files and a current runtime.
- Maker
- Google DeepMind
- Size
- 30.7B parameters, dense
- Memory needed
- 19 to 20 GB download as gemma4:31b in Ollama
- License
- Apache 2.0
- Context window
- 256K tokens
- Runs in
- Ollama (gemma4:31b), LM Studio, llama.cpp, vLLM
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
The fast one. It computes with only 3B of its 35B parameters per token, so it answers quickly on Macs and older cards. Red Hat's Coding Agent Bench ran it through all 500 SWE-bench Verified tasks: 65% with the Pi agent and 54.8% with OpenCode, same weights. WonderRico scored it 60 of 100, below the dense 27B models, and found this kind of model loses more when compressed.
Muse Glimmer-30B
Meta built this one for agents and tool use, not for code alone. WonderRico scored it 73 to 76 of 100, level with Qwen3.6-27B, but it needed about twice as many requests to get there. In rickyzzzzz's test on an M1 Max with 64 GB it passed 24 of 30 agent tasks where Qwen3.8-27B passed all 30. Hacker News user pram uses it as the agent that explores a codebase and leaves the coding to Qwen.
- Maker
- Meta Superintelligence Lab
- Size
- About 29.6B parameters, dense
- Memory needed
- Meta's K-Quant-17GB build targets 24 GB of VRAM
- License
- Apache 2.0
- Context window
- 131,072 tokens
- Runs in
- Ollama (muse-glimmer:30b, 18 GB), LM Studio, llama.cpp
gpt-oss-20b
The pick for a 16 GB graphics card, because it fits whole. Abhinav Raj at XDA used it for a week on a 16 GB RTX 4070 Ti Super and it found and explained all three planted bugs, where Qwen3-Coder 30B and Devstral Small 2 did not. Rost Glukhov measured 139.93 tokens a second on an RTX 4080. It dates from August 2025 and takes text only, and some developers now consider it outclassed by newer Qwen models.
- Maker
- OpenAI
- Size
- 21B total, 3.6B active (mixture of experts)
- Memory needed
- 14 GB loaded, all on the GPU, on a 16 GB RTX 4080 in Ollama
- License
- Apache 2.0
- Context window
- 128K tokens
- Runs in
- Ollama (gpt-oss:20b, 14 GB), LM Studio, llama.cpp, vLLM
Gemma 4 26B-A4B
Speed is the reason to choose it. George Liu got 51 tokens a second on a 14-inch MacBook Pro M4 Pro with 48 GB and wired it into Claude Code, where he says it slowed down noticeably. For agent work the results are weaker: WonderRico scored it 54 of 100 and called it fast but quite poor. Developers on Hacker News rate it higher for writing, SQL and PHP than for long coding sessions.
- Maker
- Google DeepMind
- Size
- 25.2B total, about 4B active (mixture of experts)
- Memory needed
- 17.99 GB Q4_K_M ran on a 14-inch MacBook Pro M4 Pro with 48 GB
- License
- Apache 2.0
- Context window
- 256K tokens
- Runs in
- Ollama (gemma4:26b), LM Studio, llama.cpp
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
Only for big machines. WonderRico ran compressed builds across three GPUs with 192 GB of VRAM and got 90 to 92 of 100, second only to Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. Hemant Kumar at TerminalBytes puts the need at roughly 100 to 170 GB of memory, so a 256 GB Mac Studio holds it. The smallest file WonderRico tested, at 2 bits, is 96.8 GB. It takes text only, and a newer V4.1 Flash is larger.
- Maker
- DeepSeek
- Size
- 284B total, 13B active (mixture of experts)
- Memory needed
- 96.8 GB at UD-Q2_K_XL, 155.1 GB at UD-Q4_K_XL (Unsloth GGUF files)
- License
- MIT
- Context window
- 1M tokens
- Runs in
- llama.cpp (GGUF), vLLM
Qwen3.5-9B
What to run when you have 8 GB. Rost Glukhov measured 90.89 tokens a second with all of it on a 16 GB RTX 4080, and Hacker News users name it for small tasks and as a helper model inside the Pi agent. Keep the jobs short. One user who tried it for coding gave up after it kept getting stuck rethinking the same step, and no independent test here shows it finishing long agent sessions.
- Maker
- Alibaba (Qwen team)
- Size
- 9B parameters, dense
- Memory needed
- 9.3 GB loaded, all on the GPU, on a 16 GB RTX 4080 in Ollama
- License
- Apache 2.0
- Context window
- 262,144 tokens
- Runs in
- Ollama (qwen3.5:9b, 6.6 to 7.6 GB), LM Studio, llama.cpp
Gemma 4 12B
A small model that reads images and audio as well as code, in a 7 GB file from Google. Hacker News user dofm, who runs it on an M1 Max, calls it quite good at coding jobs but weaker on nuance and not suited to long agent sessions. Another user found Gemma 4 models looping until he went back to the chat template Google first shipped. Use it for snippets, reviews and screenshots.
- Maker
- Google DeepMind
- Size
- 11.95B parameters, dense
- Memory needed
- 7.0 GB for Google's own QAT 4-bit GGUF file
- License
- Apache 2.0
- Context window
- 256K tokens
- Runs in
- Ollama (gemma4:12b, 7.7 to 8.0 GB), LM Studio, llama.cpp
GLM-4.7-Flash
An MIT-licensed alternative in the 24 GB class. Hacker News user kamranjon ran it as a main model for months and calls it tenacious and very fast. It does not fit a 16 GB card: Rost Glukhov saw it load at 21 GB on an RTX 4080 with 27% spilling to the CPU, at 33.86 tokens a second. Another user who has run it locally says it was far behind the best models even at launch.
- Maker
- Z.ai
- Size
- 30B total, 3B active (mixture of experts)
- Memory needed
- 21 GB loaded on a 16 GB RTX 4080, 27% on the CPU, in Ollama
- License
- MIT
- Context window
- 198K tokens in Ollama
- Runs in
- Ollama (glm-4.7-flash, 19 GB), LM Studio, llama.cpp, vLLM, SGLang
How to choose
With 24 to 32 GB, start with Qwen3.8-27B. Its 17 GB 4-bit file matched the full model on Terminal-Bench 2.1 in Quesma's test. With 128 GB of unified memory, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next posted the top score in WonderRico's benchmark. With 16 GB, gpt-oss-20b fits whole on the card, and one developer reports useful work from a 2-bit Qwen3.8-27B. With 8 GB, try Qwen3.5-9B and keep the jobs small. At 64 GB, run the 27B models at 8-bit, a 29 GB file, with a longer context. The step above that needs about 100 GB.
A coding agent only works if the model emits tool calls your server can parse. Gemma 4 shipped with broken tool calling that was fixed later, and Qwen chat templates have needed community fixes, so update Ollama, LM Studio or llama.cpp before blaming the model. Agents also need room: LM Studio loads models with an 8,192-token context unless you raise it.
Scores on a model card are the maker's own. A mixture-of-experts model computes with a few billion parameters per token but still has to hold all of them in memory, and context takes memory on top of the file. Qwen3.8 thinks at its highest effort by default, which is slow on home hardware. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is not Apache licensed. Older guides still recommend Qwen2.5-Coder, Qwen3-Coder and Devstral, which general-purpose models beat in the hands-on tests cited here.
The list is ordered by how many independent testers and developers recommend each model for coding, then by downloads.
Numbers checked October 11, 2026.
More guides like this
Claude Code Plugins (2026): What Developers Install
The best Claude Code plugins, picked from the setups developers publish after pruning their own installs and from Hacker News threads where people say what they kept, not from install counts alone. A plugin is a bundle. One install can carry skills, slash commands, subagents, hooks and MCP servers. A skill is a single instruction file Claude loads when it judges it relevant, and an MCP server is a connection to an outside tool, so a plugin can contain both. Type /plugin inside Claude Code to browse Anthropic's official marketplace, which is connected from the start, or run /plugin install name@claude-plugins-official. For anything else, add the maker's marketplace first with /plugin marketplace add owner/repo. If you install one thing, make it Superpowers, plus the LSP plugin for your language. Add Security Guidance if you ship code you don't read line by line, Plannotator if you want to mark up plans in a browser, and Claude HUD to see how full the context is. Every enabled plugin adds to the context on every turn, and several of the writers quoted here deleted more than they kept. Plugins run code on your machine with your permissions, and community marketplaces are not reviewed, so read what a plugin will install before you say yes. Two names trip people up. Claude Code has a built-in review command alongside the Code Review plugin. And Anthropic keeps a second, smaller marketplace in the anthropics/claude-code repo, where the loop plugin still goes by ralph-wiggum and not ralph-loop. The list is ordered by how many independent people recommend each plugin, then by installs and GitHub stars. Prices checked October 11, 2026.
Best Wispr Flow Alternatives (2026)
The best Wispr Flow alternatives: dictation apps that type into any app, for people leaving over price, cloud processing or platforms, picked from tests by 9to5Mac, ZDNet, Zapier and others. Leaving over price? Handy and FluidVoice are free, Chirp is $9.99 a year, VoiceInk is $25 once for a Mac, and Aqua Voice Pro is $8 a month billed yearly against Wispr Flow's $12. For privacy, Superwhisper, Handy, FluidVoice, VoiceInk, Spokenly and Chirp can transcribe without your audio leaving the computer, while Aqua and Typeless are cloud services like Wispr. On Linux, try Handy, Spokenly or Typeless. On Android, Typeless or Superwhisper. Accuracy depends on the model as much as the app: in Voice-list's test, Superwhisper's own models ranged from 1.6% to 22.8% of words wrong, so try another model before giving up on an app. Free tiers differ too. Aqua's is 1,000 words in total, Willow's free plan uses a lighter model, and Superwhisper's never runs out. Ordered by wins in named tests and how many independent reviewers recommend each app, then by how well it fixes the usual reasons for leaving Wispr Flow (price, privacy, platforms), then by price. Disclosure: Chirp is made by the team behind Listicle. We placed it ourselves, as the budget pick, and no independent reviewer has tested it yet. Everything else follows the order above. Prices checked October 5, 2026.
Best Clipboard Managers for Windows (2026)
The best clipboard managers for Windows 10 and 11, for anyone who has outgrown Win+V, ranked on hands-on tests by MakeUseOf, XDA, How-To Geek and others. Ordered by test wins and how many independent reviewers recommend each app, then by price, with Windows' own clipboard history included as the baseline. Pasta has no independent reviews yet, so it ranks below the apps that do. Win+V keeps 25 items and forgets them on restart unless you pin them. Ditto fixes both for free and won head-to-head tests at MakeUseOf and XDA. For more, CopyQ adds tabs and scripting, ClipClip adds an editor and OCR, and Pasteboard is the simplest modern-looking choice. Already using Raycast as a launcher? Its clipboard history is free and searchable. Most picks are free at home but not at work: ClipClip charges $49 for commercial use, ClipboardFusion's free version is for personal use only (Pro starts at $19 per PC), and Clipdiary's business license is $29.99. If you also use a Mac, Raycast and CopyQ run on both. Disclosure: Pasta is made by Automatique, the team behind Listicle; it's rated by the same criteria as everything else. Prices checked October 5, 2026.
Best Clipboard Managers for Mac (2026)
The best clipboard managers for Mac, from free apps to the history built into macOS Tahoe, ranked on hands-on tests by Zapier, MacStories, Six Colors and others. Ordered by test wins and how many independent reviewers recommend each app, then by price, with Spotlight's built-in history included as the free baseline. Pasta has no independent reviews yet, so it ranks below the apps that do. To choose, try Tahoe's Spotlight history first (Command-Space, then Command-4). If a week of history isn't enough, Maccy is the free step up, Paste is the one to get if your clipboard should follow you to an iPhone, and Pastebot suits people who reshape text as they paste. Already use Raycast, Alfred, LaunchBar or Keyboard Maestro? Try the history it already has before buying anything. Subscription or one payment? Paste costs $29.99 a year, while PastePal ($14.99), ClipBook ($9.99) and CopyClip 2 ($7.99) are one-time buys, and of those three only PastePal syncs with an iPhone. Pastebot sits in between: $39 up front, then $19 for each further year of updates. Disclosure: Pasta is made by Automatique, the team behind Listicle; it's rated by the same criteria as everything else. Prices checked October 5, 2026.
Best AI Task Managers (2026)
The best AI task managers, where the AI does real work from planning your day to running agents on a board, picked from hands-on tests by Wirecutter, PCMag, Zapier and others. Match it to how you work. If you want AI to plan your day, Sunsama walks you through a daily plan, Reclaim fits tasks around your meetings and has a free plan, and Motion plans and reshuffles your whole calendar. If you want a fast list with a little AI, start with Todoist. Teams should try Asana first, ClickUp if they want everything in one app, or Notion if their work already lives in docs. Software teams belong in Linear. On a budget: Todoist Pro and Reclaim Starter together come to about $15 a month billed yearly and put your Todoist tasks on your calendar, less than Motion's $19 alone. Google Gemini schedules tasks into Google Calendar for free. Watch the AI add-ons: ClickUp's Brain AI costs $9 a user on top of the plan, Notion's agents need the $20 Business plan, and Motion, Asana and monday.com meter AI with credits or request limits. Ordered by wins in named hands-on tests, then by how many independent reviewers recommend each app, then by fit for individuals and small teams and by price. Disclosure: Wand is made by Automatique, the team behind Listicle; it's rated by the same criteria as everything else. Prices checked October 5, 2026.
Best AI Story Writing Apps (2026)
The best AI story writing apps, from drafting partners like Sudowrite to manuscript critics like ProWritingAid, ranked on reviews by Kindlepreneur, Reedsy, The Write Practice and others. Match the tool to the job. To draft with an AI partner, Sudowrite works out of the box, while Novelcrafter gives you more control if you bring your own AI key. To revise, ProWritingAid catches line-level problems, Fictionary checks scene structure and Marlowe sends a whole-book report. For brainstorming or notes on a full draft, a general chatbot works: Claude for prose, ChatGPT for features, Gemini for very long manuscripts. On cost: Raptor Write is free and you pay only for the AI you use, and Gemini's Plus plan is $4.99 a month. Sudowrite's Hobby plan and ProWritingAid Premium together come to about $20 a month on yearly billing. Most of these meter AI use in credits or tokens, so heavy drafting can cost more than the plan price. Ordered by how many independent reviewers tested or recommended each app, then by how well it suits writing your own fiction, then by price. Disclosure: Fable is made by Automatique, the team behind Listicle; it's rated by the same criteria as everything else. Prices checked October 5, 2026.