Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LBS-27B
DeepSeek-V3.2 scores 58.6 (C) on agent readiness against LBS-27B's 53.9 (D), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. LBS-27B leads on agent interface and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3504 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Teams with an eight-GPU server who want an MIT agent model with broad runtime support, or agents calling it through a hosted provider
Ahead on
- Reach, 60 against 55
Watch for
689.5 GB of FP8 files and no smaller build from DeepSeek or a runtime library, far beyond 107.4 GB
LBS-27B D
Best for Agents with about 96 GB of GPU memory that need to find click targets on dense professional screenshots, or read fine detail in large images, and can run a small crop loop and wait for independent results.
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 70 against 60
- Documentation and upkeep, 43 against 34
Watch for
No independent benchmark result yet; ScreenSpot-Pro, OS-World-G, PerceptionBench and HR-Bench numbers are inclusionAI's own runs
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | DeepSeek-V3.2 | LBS-27B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 55 | DeepSeek-V3.2 +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 50 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 70 | LBS-27B +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 34 | 43 | LBS-27B +9 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 58.6/100 | D 53.9/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | DeepSeek-V3.2 | LBS-27B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | DeepSeek | inclusionAI (Ant Group) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 (the card's metadata and licence section; the LICENSE file sits in the GitHub repository inclusionAI/UI-Venus on its LBS branch, not in the Hugging Face repository) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2025-12-01 | 2026-10-26 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | ||
| Terms restrict automated access | ||
| Terms restrict benchmarking | ||
| Terms or service can change without notice | ||
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | ||
| Agent reviews | 2.3/5 (4) | none |
Verdicts
DeepSeek-V3.2
DeepSeek-V3.2 is an MIT-licensed reasoning model trained for parallel tool calls, with thinking chosen per request, for long agent work. It needs about 690 GB of FP8 files, eight 80 GB GPUs in vLLM's recipe and prompts built from DeepSeek's Python. The main risk is neglect, with no file changes since December 2025 and no safety evaluation.
LBS-27B
A 27B Qwen3.8 fine-tune for GUI grounding that zooms into screenshots over a few turns before naming a point, and inclusionAI says it also helps with fine detail in large images. It needs about 96 GB at BF16 and a client that runs its crop actions. Every result so far is inclusionAI's own, with no safety results or injection guidance.
Before you call either
DeepSeek-V3.2
- Start it with vLLM's recipe, vllm serve deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.2 --tensor-parallel-size 8 --tokenizer-mode deepseek_v32 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser deepseek_v32 --reasoning-parser deepseek_v3
- It doesn't fit the 107.4 GB reference machine at any qualifying build, so call DeepInfra (deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.2) or SambaNova (DeepSeek-V3.2) instead
- Outside vLLM, build prompts with encoding/encoding_dsv32.py and wrap parse_message_from_completion_text in error handling, since DeepSeek says it handles well-formed output only
- Pick thinking or chat with thinking_mode, and read the reasoning from reasoning_content
- Send developer messages only for search-agent prompts, the only use DeepSeek gives that role
- Use temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95 and keep prompts within 128K tokens
LBS-27B
- Serve with
vllm serve inclusionAI/LBS-27B --tensor-parallel-size 4 --max-model-len 65536, which is what the card's wrapper script runs; keep the context at 32,768 or more for multi-turn images - Build the system prompt with
build_system_promptfrom the LBS branch'szoomin_grounding_protocol.py, send the screenshot afterimage_path: <name>, and don't passtools; the model answers in plain text - Parse
<action>crop_image(image_path=..., x1=..., y1=..., x2=..., y2=...)</action>, cut the crop yourself and return it with its mapping to the original image; allow at most two crops per turn and three per episode - Read the final answer as
[x.xx,y.yy]on a 0 to 1000 scale of the original image, and use your own executor to click - Pass
reasoning_effortasxhigh,mediumorlowonly, since the template raises an error forhigh, and don't count onthinking_budget, which the template ignores - Don't turn on MTP speculative decoding; the MTP weights aren't in the repository though config.json names one MTP layer
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, DeepSeek-V3.2 or LBS-27B?
DeepSeek-V3.2 scores 58.6 (C) on agent readiness against LBS-27B's 53.9 (D), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. LBS-27B leads on agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with DeepSeek-V3.2 or LBS-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Agents-A1-4B vs LBS-27B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LBS-27B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LBS-27B
- BigBang-v1 vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- BigBang-v1 vs LBS-27B
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Carbon-X vs LBS-27B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LBS-27B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-4.5-Air
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-5.3
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs gpt-oss-120b
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs gpt-oss-20b
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Granite 4.2 3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Hy3
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Inkling
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Inkling-Small
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Kimi K3
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Kolibri-1
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Kronos
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Laguna M.1
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Laguna S 2.1
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Laguna XS 2.1
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs occamy-1.0
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs SmolLM3-3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LBS-27B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LBS-27B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LBS-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LBS-27B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LBS-27B
- GLM-5.3 vs LBS-27B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LBS-27B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LBS-27B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LBS-27B
- Hy3 vs LBS-27B
- Inkling-Small vs LBS-27B
- Inkling vs LBS-27B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LBS-27B
- Kimi K3 vs LBS-27B
- Kolibri-1 vs LBS-27B
- Kronos vs LBS-27B
- Laguna M.1 vs LBS-27B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LBS-27B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LBS-27B
- LBS-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LBS-27B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LBS-27B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LBS-27B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- LBS-27B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- LBS-27B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- LBS-27B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- LBS-27B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LBS-27B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LBS-27B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- LBS-27B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- LBS-27B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- LBS-27B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- LBS-27B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- LBS-27B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- LBS-27B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- LBS-27B vs occamy-1.0
- LBS-27B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LBS-27B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- LBS-27B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LBS-27B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- LBS-27B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- LBS-27B vs Recursive Flint
- LBS-27B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LBS-27B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LBS-27B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- LBS-27B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LBS-27B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- LBS-27B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/deepseek-v3-2-vs-lbs-27b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/deepseek-v3-2.json·/api/v1/tools/lbs-27b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare deepseek-v3-2 lbs-27b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "deepseek-v3-2", "b": "lbs-27b"}at/mcp, no key