Relative Adoption Metric (RAM)

    The RAM score: A better metric for contextualizing the downloads of new open models across size ranges.

    Score = (Model's Downloads) / (Median of Top 10 in Size Category)
    A score of 1 means a model is tracking to be a top 10 downloaded model of its size.

    Nathan Lambert — January 12, 2026

    Visualizing the RAM Score

    Median top 10 model downloads per size category with recent models over time

    Data last updated: 11 Jan 2026

    Size:
    Models:
    Cumulative HuggingFace Downloads
    Days Since Release

    While building The ATOM Project and other tools to measure the open ecosystem at Interconnects.ai, we are often frustrated with using downloads as a primary metric. We, and the community, know that small models are downloaded much more, so it makes some adoption metrics favor organizations releasing small models. Over the 1,100+ leading LLMs we track carefully, more than 1.4 billion of ~2 billion total downloads come from models in the 1-9B range.

    This small model dominance happens to be partially caused by far more models being released at that size. Among the top 10 downloaded models at each size category, the median models from 1-9B parameters are only downloaded about 4X the count of models of 100B+ parameters. Still, this difference combined with the potential of small models to be outliers in downloads—by being loaded in the continuous integration (CI) tests of ML developers checking their code and other at-scale automated systems—makes small models dominate plots.

    We created the Relative Adoption Metric, reported as a RAM Score, to be able to tell within 30-90 days if a new model is on track to be ecosystem defining. We can already see that some models, such as GPT-OSS, are truly exceptional. In releasing only 2 models, OpenAI is well on the map as a top 5-10 open model lab in adoption metrics—this is hard to see when comparing organizations versus each other, when OpenAI's competitors may have many models.

    We're also excited to see that some recent larger models from newer AI labs on the scene, such as MiniMax or Moonshot AI, are outperforming the metric, indicating competition in the large MoE space dominated by DeepSeek earlier in the year.

    We're excited to support the ecosystem with this new tool!

    Recent Model Performance

    ModelSizeBucket7d14d30d60d90d
    GPT-OSS 120B120B100-250B43x
    0.4M
    16x
    0.8M
    18x
    2.7M
    24x
    6.5M
    40x
    10M
    MiniMax M2.1229B100-250B9.3x
    93K
    3.9x
    195K
    ------
    Nemotron Nano 3 (30B)32B10-50B3.1x
    62K
    1.4x
    210K
    ------
    Kimi K2 Thinking1000B250B+3x
    90K
    1.6x
    160K
    1.8x
    380K
    1x
    720K
    --
    DeepSeek OCR3B1-5B30x
    300K
    19x
    1.3M
    7.5x
    4.3M
    5.1x
    9.3M
    --
    OlmoCR 2-FP87B7-9B0.12x
    11K
    0.25x
    70K
    0.24x
    157K
    1.05x
    1.6M
    --
    GLM 4.7358B250B+0.93x
    28K
    0.32x
    32K
    ------
    DeepSeek V3.2685B250B+0.85x
    26K
    0.61x
    61K
    0.54x
    110K
    ----

    Methodology

    Data Collection

    • Top 10 models per size bucket by total downloads from HuggingFace
    • Cumulative downloads at milestones: 7d, 14d, 30d, 60d, 90d, 180d, 365d post-release
    • Historical HuggingFace total downloads over time per model

    Why Median + IQR?

    We use median instead of mean because outliers can skew averages dramatically. For example, the 1-5B bucket at 30d has a single outlier (Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct at 50.5M) that skews the mean from 0.57M to 5.51M — nearly 10x. Using median + IQR (interquartile range, 25th-75th percentile) gives more representative reference values, which gives a simple metric to understand if a model is on track to be a top model in the ecosystem.