Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LBS-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
Ling-3.0-tiny scores 55 (C) on agent readiness against LBS-27B's 53.9 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LBS-27B leads on agent interface. 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.
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 70 against 60
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 on a laptop or small GPU that want a fast local model for tool calls and short reasoning, under MIT
Ahead on
- Reach, 90 against 55
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 43
Watch for
No hosted provider today, and Ollama support is only an unmerged pull request
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LBS-27B | Ling-3.0-tiny | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 55 | 90 | Ling-3.0-tiny +35 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 50 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 70 | 60 | LBS-27B +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 43 | 56 | Ling-3.0-tiny +13 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 53.9/100 | C 55/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LBS-27B | Ling-3.0-tiny |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | inclusionAI (Ant Group) | inclusionAI (Ant Group) |
| 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) | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-26 | 2026-08-31 |
| 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 | 2.8/5 (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.
Ling-3.0-tiny
A small, quick hybrid reasoning cousin for local agent work, tool calls and coding, under MIT. It runs in about 6 GB from inclusionAI's 4-bit GGUF in released Transformers, vLLM, SGLang and llama.cpp, with no host. The main risks are a card that doesn't match the files in places, the vLLM route running repository code, and no model safety results.
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
Ling-3.0-tiny
- Start it with
llama-server -hf inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-tiny-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja -c 32768, which needs llama.cpp b11772 or a recent release with bailingmoe3 - With vLLM 0.32.0,
vllm serve inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-tiny --trust-remote-code --enable-prefix-caching --mamba-cache-mode align --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser ling3 --reasoning-parser ling3, which runs the repository's config code - With SGLang 0.5.22, its cookbook uses
--reasoning-parser deepseek-r1 --tool-call-parser glm45for this model, and drop the card's NEXTN flags since tiny has no MTP layer - Thinking is on by default, pass
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks - Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20
- The template keeps earlier reasoning in the prompt, which grows long agent sessions
- Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
- For a guardrail, inclusionAI's Ling-3.0-tiny-singprobe scores intent, unsafe output and hallucination per token, but only through SGLang and vLLM integration branches
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LBS-27B or Ling-3.0-tiny?
Ling-3.0-tiny scores 55 (C) on agent readiness against LBS-27B's 53.9 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LBS-27B leads on agent interface.
Other comparisons with LBS-27B or Ling-3.0-tiny
- Agents-A1-4B vs LBS-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LBS-27B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LBS-27B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- BigBang-v1 vs LBS-27B
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Carbon-X vs LBS-27B
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LBS-27B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LBS-27B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LBS-27B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LBS-27B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LBS-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LBS-27B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3 vs LBS-27B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-120b vs LBS-27B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-20b vs LBS-27B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LBS-27B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy3 vs LBS-27B
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling-Small vs LBS-27B
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling vs LBS-27B
- Inkling vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LBS-27B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3 vs LBS-27B
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kolibri-1 vs LBS-27B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kronos vs LBS-27B
- Kronos vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna M.1 vs LBS-27B
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LBS-27B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LBS-27B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LBS-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- 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
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs occamy-1.0
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lbs-27b-vs-ling-3-0-tiny.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/lbs-27b.json·/api/v1/tools/ling-3-0-tiny.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lbs-27b ling-3-0-tiny(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lbs-27b", "b": "ling-3-0-tiny"}at/mcp, no key