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

Ling-3.1-flash-1019 C

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

CategoryWeight this runLBS-27BLing-3.1-flash-1019Edge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%256060even
Risk20%205045LBS-27B +5
Agent interface10%107060LBS-27B +10
Documentation and upkeep10%104356Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +13
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 55.8/100C 54.8/100

Facts side by side

FactLBS-27BLing-3.1-flash-1019
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorinclusionAI (Ant Group)inclusionAI (Ant Group)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-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 documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-10-262026-11-04
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked

How the scores have moved

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

  1. 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
  2. Build the system prompt with build_system_prompt from the LBS branch's zoomin_grounding_protocol.py, send the screenshot after image_path: <name>, and don't pass tools; the model answers in plain text
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Pass reasoning_effort as xhigh, medium or low only, since the template raises an error for high, and don't count on thinking_budget, which the template ignores
  6. 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

  1. 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
  2. With vLLM pass --trust-remote-code, --tool-call-parser ling3 and --reasoning-parser ling3
  3. Set chat_template_kwargs enable_thinking false for direct answers. Reasoning comes back in reasoning_content per SGLang's cookbook
  4. Plan on 262,144 tokens of context. The 1M figure needs the YaRN override in SGLang's cookbook
  5. Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20, per the card
  6. 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

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.