Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
LBS-27B scores 55.8 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 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 4969 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
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.
Ahead on
- Risk, 50 against 45
- 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 Teams with a multi-GPU server that want an MIT-licensed flagship for long agent runs and coding
Ahead on
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 43
Watch for
574 GB in FP8 with no smaller build from inclusionAI, so no single machine under 690 GB of GPU memory runs it
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.
Documentation and upkeep Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +13
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.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 56
Model card 11, Intended use (complex reasoning, multi-step tasks and agentic workflows), architecture, parameters (560B total, 25B active) and context (1M claimed) are on the card. Training data 15, the training-content summary the card links names the source categories (Common Crawl and other public datasets, commercially licensed data, the Ant Spider crawler, synthetic data), the size band (over 10 trillion text tokens), data collected up to about July 2026 and the filtering, without listing datasets with sizes. Last change 20, the newest commit, on 4 November 2026, edited the card, six days before this check, and the files went up on 27 October. Responsiveness 0, Neither of the 2 discussions that aren't pull requests (both opened on 27 October 2026) has a reply from an inclusionAI member. Version policy 5, the update went into a repository of its own and Ling-3.1-flash and Ling 3.0 stay in theirs. File health 5, the card states a 1M-token context while config.json gives 262,144 with no rope scaling, and its serve commands name the earlier repository as the model path. 11 + 15 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 5 = 56.
Agent interface LBS-27B +10
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.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (6,042 characters), which handles tools, the thinking switch and preserved reasoning. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says how tools are declared (JSON in <tools>) and how calls come back (<tool_call>name with <arg_key> and <arg_value> pairs). Trained tool calling 20, the template tells the model it may call one or more functions and loops over every entry in an assistant message's tool_calls, and the card reports gains on agentic benchmarks, AA-Briefcase and AutomationBench-AA among them. Structured output 0, the card doesn't document JSON or JSON Schema output. Reasoning control 0, the card documents turning thinking on or off per request with chat_template_kwargs enable_thinking, and names the ling3 reasoning parser, but doesn't say where the reasoning text comes back. Context 10, 262,144 tokens natively in config.json (max_position_embeddings 262144, rope_scaling null) and per SGLang's cookbook. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.
Risk LBS-27B +5
LBS-27B 50
File safety earns 15, safetensors only but with the documented route running the publisher's scripts to serve it and to write its system prompt. Provenance earns 15, inclusionAI's own organisation with a hash for every file. Safety evaluation and agent guidance earn 0, as nothing is published on either, prompt injection through screenshots included. Licence risk keeps all 15 under Apache 2.0. The security programme earns 5 for Ant Group's AntSRC, which isn't linked to the model.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 45
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25), less 10 because the card's documented vLLM command passes --trust-remote-code, which runs the repository's configuration_bailing_moe_v3.py, since vLLM 0.33.0 registers no bailing_hybrid config of its own. Provenance 15, files in the inclusionAI organisation that inclusion-ai.org links to, per the Ling-3.0-tiny listing (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results for the model on its card or in the training-content summary. Agent guidance 0, the card has nothing on prompt injection, refusals or safeguards, and inclusionAI publishes no guardrail probe for this model as it did for Ling 3.0. Licence risk 15, MIT with no use policy, no field-of-use limits, no threshold and no clause letting inclusionAI change or revoke it. Security programme 0, www.inclusion-ai.org answers 404 for security.txt on 10 November 2026, and the Ling-3.0-tiny listing found no SECURITY.md or disclosure policy in the inclusionAI .github repository. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LBS-27B | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 60 | even |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 45 | LBS-27B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 70 | 60 | LBS-27B +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 43 | 56 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +13 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 55.8/100 | C 54.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LBS-27B | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2026-11-04 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
How the scores have moved
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
No score change since it was listed.
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-3.1-flash-1019
inclusionAI's newest flagship, a 560B hybrid mixture of experts under plain MIT that vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp run in released versions. It ships only as 574 GB of FP8, so it needs a multi-GPU server. The card overstates the context, documents little about tool calls, and has no 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-3.1-flash-1019
- Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later on 8 H200 or 4 GB300 GPUs, per the card, and use this repository's name as the model path, not the earlier one the card's command shows
- With vLLM pass
--trust-remote-code,--tool-call-parser ling3and--reasoning-parser ling3 - Set
chat_template_kwargsenable_thinkingfalse for direct answers. Reasoning comes back inreasoning_contentper SGLang's cookbook - Plan on 262,144 tokens of context. The 1M figure needs the YaRN override in SGLang's cookbook
- Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20, per the card
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LBS-27B or Ling-3.1-flash-1019?
LBS-27B scores 55.8 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 leads on documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with LBS-27B or Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs LBS-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LBS-27B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LBS-27B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs LBS-27B
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs LBS-27B
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs LBS-27B
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LBS-27B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LBS-27B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LBS-27B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LBS-27B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LBS-27B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LBS-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LBS-27B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs LBS-27B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-120b vs LBS-27B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-20b vs LBS-27B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LBS-27B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LBS-27B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LBS-27B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LBS-27B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs LBS-27B
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling-Small vs LBS-27B
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling vs LBS-27B
- Inkling vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LBS-27B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LBS-27B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3 vs LBS-27B
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kolibri-1 vs LBS-27B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kronos vs LBS-27B
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna M.1 vs LBS-27B
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LBS-27B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LBS-27B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- 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 MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- 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 Nanbeige4.3-33B
- 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-1.5-122B
- 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 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 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-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Mistral Large 4
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs occamy-1.0
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lbs-27b-vs-ling-3-1-flash-1019.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/lbs-27b.json·/api/v1/tools/ling-3-1-flash-1019.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lbs-27b ling-3-1-flash-1019(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lbs-27b", "b": "ling-3-1-flash-1019"}at/mcp, no key