Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
GLM-4.7-Flash vs LBS-27B
GLM-4.7-Flash scores 63 (B) on agent readiness against LBS-27B's 53.9 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. LBS-27B leads on 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 Agents and developers who want a small, permissively licensed tool-calling model on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac, in almost any runtime
Ahead on
- Reach, 80 against 55
- Risk, 55 against 50
- Agent interface, 85 against 70
Watch for
No change to the files since 29 January 2026 and no zai-org reply on discussions since 31 January
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
- Documentation and upkeep, 43 against 28
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 | GLM-4.7-Flash | LBS-27B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 80 | 55 | GLM-4.7-Flash +25 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 50 | GLM-4.7-Flash +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 70 | GLM-4.7-Flash +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 28 | 43 | LBS-27B +15 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 63/100 | D 53.9/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | GLM-4.7-Flash | LBS-27B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Z.ai (Zhipu AI) | 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 | 2026-01-29 | 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 | 2.8/5 (4) | none |
Verdicts
GLM-4.7-Flash
A small MIT-licensed mixture-of-experts model with about 3B active parameters, for local agent and coding work with several tool calls per turn and optional thinking. It runs in Ollama at about 23 GB and in nearly every common runtime. The main risk is neglect, with no changes or replies since early February 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
GLM-4.7-Flash
- On our reference machine start it with
vllm serve zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash --max-model-len 65536 --tool-call-parser glm47 --reasoning-parser glm45 --enable-auto-tool-choice --served-model-name glm-4.7-flash - Or run
ollama run glm-4.7-flashfor the 19 GB q4_K_M build - Without the glm47 and glm45 parsers, tool calls and reasoning come back as plain text
- Use a released vLLM (0.32.0 or later) or SGLang (0.5.22 or later); the card's nightly and pull-request builds date from January 2026
- Pass
chat_template_kwargs: {"enable_thinking": false}for short tasks, since thinking is on by default - Set
clear_thinking: falseto keep earlier reasoning in multi-turn agent work, as Z.ai does for τ²-Bench and Terminal Bench - Set the context length yourself, since config.json allows 202,752 tokens and tokenizer_config.json says 128,000
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, GLM-4.7-Flash or LBS-27B?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores 63 (B) on agent readiness against LBS-27B's 53.9 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. LBS-27B leads on documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with GLM-4.7-Flash or LBS-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs LBS-27B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LBS-27B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LBS-27B
- BigBang-v1 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs LBS-27B
- Carbon-X vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Carbon-X vs LBS-27B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LBS-27B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LBS-27B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LBS-27B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LBS-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs gpt-oss-20b
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Granite 4.2 3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Inkling
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Inkling-Small
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kimi K3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kronos
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna M.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna XS 2.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs occamy-1.0
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs SmolLM3-3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- 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/glm-4-7-flash-vs-lbs-27b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/glm-4-7-flash.json·/api/v1/tools/lbs-27b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare glm-4-7-flash lbs-27b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "glm-4-7-flash", "b": "lbs-27b"}at/mcp, no key