Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LBS-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
LBS-27B scores 53.9 (D) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 0 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach, 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
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.
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
Best for Agents that want a small local helper for tool calls, extraction and RAG on a laptop, phone or CPU, at organisations under the licence's revenue threshold
Ahead on
- Reach, 95 against 55
- Agent interface, 75 against 70
- Documentation and upkeep, 57 against 43
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LBS-27B | LFM2.5-2.6B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 55 | 95 | LFM2.5-2.6B +40 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 50 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 70 | 75 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 43 | 57 | LFM2.5-2.6B +14 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 53.9/100 | D 51.5/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LBS-27B | LFM2.5-2.6B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | inclusionAI (Ant Group) | Liquid AI |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | 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) | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-26 | 2026-09-22 |
| 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 | none | 2.5/5 (4) |
Verdicts
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.
LFM2.5-2.6B
A small, fast cousin for tool calls, extraction and long-context steps on a laptop or phone. Liquid's own 4-bit build is 1.6 GB, and every common runtime runs it. It always thinks, isn't meant for coding or knowledge-heavy work, and organisations over $10M of revenue need another licence. There are no safety results or security contact.
Before you call either
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
LFM2.5-2.6B
- Quickest start is
ollama run LiquidAI/lfm2.5-2.6b, 1.7 GB, orllama-cli -hf LiquidAI/LFM2.5-2.6B-GGUF - With vLLM or SGLang pass
--tool-call-parser lfm2; for vLLM add--reasoning-parser qwen3so the thinking comes back separately - Sample at temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition_penalty 1.1, as the card and generation_config.json set
- Put tools in the system prompt as
List of tools: [...]JSON, or pass tools to apply_chat_template; calls come back as a Python list of function calls, and the system prompt can ask for JSON calls instead - Leave max_tokens unset or generous, since a low cap cuts the reasoning off mid-thought
- Earlier thinking is dropped from the prompt unless
preserve_thinkingis true - Liquid's 328M LFM2.5-2.6B-DSpark drafter speeds decoding about 2.6 times in SGLang and on Apple silicon, per Liquid
- Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LBS-27B or LFM2.5-2.6B?
LBS-27B scores 53.9 (D) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 0 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with LBS-27B or LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LBS-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LBS-27B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LBS-27B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs LBS-27B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Carbon-X vs LBS-27B
- Carbon-X vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LBS-27B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LBS-27B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LBS-27B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LBS-27B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LBS-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LBS-27B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs LBS-27B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LBS-27B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LBS-27B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LBS-27B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs LBS-27B
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs LBS-27B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs LBS-27B
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LBS-27B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs LBS-27B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs LBS-27B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kronos vs LBS-27B
- Kronos vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs LBS-27B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LBS-27B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LBS-27B
- Laguna XS 2.1 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
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs occamy-1.0
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lbs-27b-vs-lfm2-5-2-6b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/lbs-27b.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm2-5-2-6b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lbs-27b lfm2-5-2-6b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lbs-27b", "b": "lfm2-5-2-6b"}at/mcp, no key