Cactus Needle 3: 8-29MB automation models can match DeepSeek V4 Flash

Hey HN, Henry from Cactus here.We submitted Needle 2 here a few weeks ago, and the feedback in the discussion thread was incredibly valuable, thanks! Thanks to all that feedback, we’ve been able to move quickly to release Needle 3 and I'd love to hear what you think again.The key features:1) Automation (tool calls & structured JSON output): Needle still doesn't chat by design, its quite challenging to pack general capacity into such small models, so we focus on tool calls and structured JSON. If no tool you declared fits the request, you get an empty list back (note for when playing with the demo).2) Intelligence Laddering: Every layer (2 to 20) is a deployable subnetwork, so one set of weights, 25 to 121 million parameters at 2-bit, shipping as 8-29MB binaries. On a Raspberry Pi 5 it decodes at up to 4k tokens/sec and prefills at up to 10k.3) Monarch Hadamard MLP: replaces the dense FFN with three learnable Walsh-Hadamard-initialized Kronecker (Monarch) factor pairs interleaved with per-channel diagonal scales, fixed permutations, a SiLU nonlinearity, and a rank-8 input-conditioned gate, so each token gets a fully mixed nonlinear transform of its d_model channels at O(d√d) parameters and compute instead of the O(d²) a dense 4x-expansion MLP would cost.4) Performance: On Mobile Actions (phone commands, scored on the exact call) the 20-layer model gets 86.0 through the shipped 2-bit binary; LFM2.5 1.2B is at 82.4, Qwen3.5 0.8B at 76.0, Apple's on-device model at 57.6, all at f16. More results on the link, we do not win everywhere ofc.5) Multilingual: Needle 3 now supports English, French, Spanish, German, Dutch, Italian, Polish, with more languages coming.6) Finetuning: You can achieve DeepSeek v4 Flash grade performance on a narrow task with just 4L, stress on "narrow task", we found that production users often prefer tuning before production.7) Triggers: Grounding is a common challenge for tool call, at least for Needle 2, so we ad

Hacker NewsToolAISource
0Sign in to voteCopy link

FL score

72

out of 100

Verdict

VALIDATE

high confidence

Competition

No competitor data yet

Trend

No signal yet

Cactus Needle 3 is a 8-29MB automation model that trades general intelligence for tool-calling performance on resource-constrained devices, but lacks a clear path to sustainable revenue.

The pain

Mobile and edge devices need to execute structured tasks (phone commands, API calls, form filling) without sending data to cloud servers, but existing small models either cannot call tools reliably or require too much compute.

The gap

Most small models are trained for chat and struggle with tool use. Larger models are too slow on-device. Needle 3 fills the gap by optimizing specifically for tool calls and structured output on 8-29MB binaries, achieving better accuracy than competitors on narrow automation tasks.

Build angle

The team has proven they can iterate quickly (Needle 2 to 3 in weeks), incorporate feedback, and ship working products. The technical approach (Monarch Hadamard MLP, intelligence laddering) is novel and well-executed. The risk is that this remains a point solution rather than a platform.

Strengths

  • Shipping real products with measurable benchmarks on a specific task (Mobile Actions at 86% vs competitors at 57-82%)
  • Technical innovation in model compression and efficiency that is not trivial to replicate
  • Multi-language support and finetuning capability show product maturity beyond v1
  • Raspberry Pi 5 performance (4k tokens/sec decode) proves real-world usability
  • Responsive to user feedback and able to ship iterations quickly

Risks

  • Narrow use case (tool calling only, no chat) limits total addressable market and makes it hard to justify large customer acquisition spend
  • No clear go-to-market strategy. Who buys this and how? B2B SaaS, licensing, open source with services, or something else?
  • Larger model providers (DeepSeek, Qwen, Apple) can optimize for on-device performance at scale. Needle's moat is technical depth, not network effects or data.
  • Benchmarks are on a single task (Mobile Actions). Real-world performance on diverse automation tasks is unknown.
  • Finetuning requires customer effort and data. Adoption friction is higher than a plug-and-play API.
  • Revenue model is not stated. Without clarity on pricing and customer willingness to pay, this is a technical demo, not a business.

Questions about this idea?

FlyBot reads the scoring and gives you a second opinion on “Cactus Needle 3: 8-29MB automation models can match DeepSeek V4 Flash”.

Open FlyBot