Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LBS-27B
EXAONE 4.5 33B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LBS-27B's 55.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 6359 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Researchers and students working on documents, Korean or multimodal agents who don't need commercial rights
Ahead on
- Reach, 65 against 60
- Agent interface, 85 against 70
- Documentation and upkeep, 50 against 43
Watch for
Research and education only. No commercial use of the model or its output
LBS-27B C
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.
No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.
Watch for
No independent benchmark result yet; ScreenSpot-Pro, OS-World-G, PerceptionBench and HR-Bench numbers are inclusionAI's own runs
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Agent interface EXAONE 4.5 33B +15
EXAONE 4.5 33B 85
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (5,930 characters). Tool-calling format 25, the card's vLLM command names the parser, hermes with auto tool choice, and its agentic example calls tools from MCP servers through the OpenAI-compatible API, so declaration and return follow that API. Trained tool calling 20, the card reports agentic tool use among its language results and shows an agent run with several tool servers, and the template renders every call in a turn. Structured output 0, Nothing on the card about JSON or schema-constrained output. Reasoning control 10, enable_thinking is on by default and the card says to set it false for the non-reasoning mode, with an example of each. Context 10, 262,144 tokens per the card's configuration table and config.json, and the card's serve commands run at that length. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.
LBS-27B 70
The chat template earns 20, Qwen's Jinja file in the repository. The tool-calling format earns 10, as general tool calls rest on the inherited template and the crop action is parsed by inclusionAI's own code, not a runtime parser. Trained tool calling earns 20 for up to two crop actions per turn learned in GRPO. Structured output earns 0. Reasoning control earns 10, with reasoning effort documented and the reasoning shown as think text. Context earns 10 for 262,144 tokens with no scaling.
Documentation and upkeep EXAONE 4.5 33B +7
EXAONE 4.5 33B 50
Model card 20, Uses (the quickstart's question answering, document and agent examples), limitations, the architecture, the parameters, the context, the languages (in the metadata) and a knowledge cut-off of December 2024 are all on the card. Training data 5, A knowledge cut-off and one line on excluding personal, harmful and biased content, with no sources or sizes. Last change 10, the main repository last changed on 6 July 2026 (dependencies moved to official releases), 127 days before this check, and the FP8 repository on 9 August, 93 days. Responsiveness 0, none of the 5 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (13 April to 4 May 2026) has a reply from an LGAI-EXAONE member, counted on 10 November by author flags and dates with a script, text not read. Version policy 5, EXAONE 4.0 and 4.0.1 stay in their own repositories and 4.5 came out in new ones, with no dated note on the older cards that we read. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture and the 262,144 tokens, and a July commit moved the dependencies to released versions. 20 + 5 + 10 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 50.
LBS-27B 43
The model card earns 8, with intended use, one limitation and parameters, and no architecture, context, languages or cut-off. Training data earns 5 for a general description of synthetic GUI data with no cut-off. Last change earns 20 for 26 October 2026. Responsiveness earns 0, the one discussion unanswered. Version policy earns 5 for a first release. File health earns 5, as the config still sets an MTP layer the weights lack and the card names a reasoning setting the template refuses.
Reach EXAONE 4.5 33B +5
EXAONE 4.5 33B 65
Memory 20, the smallest build at 4 bits is LG's IQ4_XS GGUF, 18.03 GB with the 2.57 GB projector, and 20.60 GB × 1.2 = 24.7 GB, within 32 GB. Without the projector, for text only, it would fit 24 GB. Runtimes 15, Released vLLM 0.33.0 has exaone4_5.py, Transformers 5.22.2 has the exaone4_5 model, and llama.cpp b12242 has the architecture, with LG's own GGUF. Three at 5 each. Builds 15, LG publishes GGUF at five quantised precisions, an AWQ build and an FP8 build. Terms 5, Research and educational use only. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for all four repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and no click-through, though the licence says downloading is acceptance. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps no inference provider to it, and the card names no API that serves it. 20 + 15 + 15 + 5 + 10 + 0 = 65.
LBS-27B 60
Memory earns 10, since the only build is 54.73 GB of BF16, about 66 GB with a fifth added, which fits the reference machine but not 64 GB. Runtimes earn 25 from released vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp, which all carry Qwen3.8-27B's architecture, and Ollama through the llama.cpp release it pins, so 25. Builds earn 0, as inclusionAI publishes no quantised build and the GGUF copies are bartowski's and mradermacher's. Terms earn 15 for Apache 2.0 with nothing added, on the weights and on the base. Download earns 10, with no gate. Hosted earns 0, as no provider or inclusionAI API serves it.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | EXAONE 4.5 33B | LBS-27B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 65 | 60 | EXAONE 4.5 33B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 50 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 70 | EXAONE 4.5 33B +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 50 | 43 | EXAONE 4.5 33B +7 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 55.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | EXAONE 4.5 33B | LBS-27B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | LG AI Research | inclusionAI (Ant Group) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | EXAONE AI Model License Agreement 1.2 - NC (research and education only) | 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 | 2026-07-06 | 2026-10-26 |
| Terms last updated | not read yet | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
How the scores have moved
EXAONE 4.5 33B
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
EXAONE 4.5 33B
A well-documented vision-language model with a full set of builds, tool calling, switchable reasoning, a 256K context and a stated knowledge cut-off. The licence decides whether you can use it: research and education only, output included, and LG can change the terms. Nothing answered on the repository and no safety results.
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
EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Don't use it, or anything it writes, commercially. The licence covers the output too
- Serve it with vLLM and
--reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser hermes - Set
enable_thinkingfalse for a direct answer. Thinking is on by default - Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and presence_penalty 1.5 in general, and temperature 0.6 with top_k 20 for documents and Korean
- For llama.cpp, load a projector file from LG's GGUF repository with the weights for image input
- Its knowledge stops at December 2024
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, EXAONE 4.5 33B or LBS-27B?
EXAONE 4.5 33B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LBS-27B's 55.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories.
Other comparisons with EXAONE 4.5 33B or LBS-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LBS-27B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LBS-27B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LBS-27B
- Arete-27B vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Arete-27B vs LBS-27B
- BigBang-v1 vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- BigBang-v1 vs LBS-27B
- Carbon-X vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Carbon-X vs LBS-27B
- Cola2 vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Cola2 vs LBS-27B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LBS-27B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LBS-27B
- Devstral Small 2 vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Devstral Small 2 vs LBS-27B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LBS-27B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs GLM-4.5-Air
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs GLM-5.3
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs gpt-oss-120b
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs gpt-oss-20b
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Granite 4.2 30B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Granite 4.2 3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Granite 4.2 8B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Hy3
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Inkling
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Inkling-Small
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Kimi K3
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Kolibri-1
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Kronos
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Laguna M.1
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Laguna S 2.1
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Laguna XS 2.1
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM3-1.7B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LongCat-2.5
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Mistral Large 4
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs occamy-1.0
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Recursive Flint
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs SmolLM3-3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs ZAYA1-8B
- 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 30B vs LBS-27B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LBS-27B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LBS-27B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B 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 K3.1 Pro 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 LFM3-1.7B
- LBS-27B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- LBS-27B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- LBS-27B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LBS-27B vs LongCat-2.5
- LBS-27B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LBS-27B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- LBS-27B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LBS-27B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LBS-27B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- 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 Mistral Large 4
- LBS-27B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LBS-27B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- 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 North Mini Code 1.0
- LBS-27B vs occamy-1.0
- LBS-27B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LBS-27B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- 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 OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- LBS-27B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- 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 Ripple-65B Preview
- LBS-27B vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- LBS-27B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LBS-27B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LBS-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- 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
- LBS-27B vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- LBS-27B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LBS-27B vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/exaone-4-5-33b-vs-lbs-27b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/exaone-4-5-33b.json·/api/v1/tools/lbs-27b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare exaone-4-5-33b lbs-27b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "exaone-4-5-33b", "b": "lbs-27b"}at/mcp, no key