Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 and GLM 5.3 Flash side-by-side.
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash on Vision Evals
Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Haiku 5.5 leads 65.8% to 33.1%.
Overall, Claude Haiku 5.5 averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 66.3% (#41 of 61) for GLM 5.3 Flash.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper ($0.0005 vs $0.0005 per sample), while GLM 5.3 Flash is faster (6.8s vs 13.2s per sample).
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026
| Property | Claude Haiku 5.5 | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Z.ai |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | undisclosed | 320B total, 18B active |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $0.150 |
| Output $/1M | $0.500 | $0.500 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 77.2% | 66.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0005 | $0.0005 |
| Avg speed / sample | 13.23s | 6.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 65.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.1 to 66.2 | 33.1% |
| Object Detection (high) | 68.2% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.2 to 69.2 | – |
| Counting (low) | 68.9% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 74.3 | 55.4% |
| Counting (high) | 73.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 74.3 | – |
| Identification (low) | 83.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 | – |
| OCR (low) | 90.1% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.8 to 91.0 | 90.6% |
| OCR (high) | 88.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 89.6 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 85.9% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 87.6 | 83.5% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 87.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.6 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 68.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.9 to 70.9 | 51.0% |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 77.5 | 59.6% |
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Overview
Claude Haiku 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the smallest member of the Claude 5.5 family, released on October 7, 2026 after Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 1M token context window and up to 128K output tokens per request. It is the first Haiku-class model with an adjustable effort parameter: adaptive thinking is on by default and the model decides how much to reason, steered by effort levels from low to max with medium as the default. Its training data cutoff is June 2026. Pricing starts at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens for prompts up to 100K tokens, which Anthropic reports is about 90% lower than Claude Haiku 4.5 for requests in that range.
Anthropic positions Haiku 5.5 for high-volume, latency-sensitive work such as classification, extraction, routing, summarization, and subagent tasks, and describes it as its fastest model to date at standard speed. On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, it scores 46.4% on Chartography, a chart reading benchmark, compared with 6.4% for Haiku 4.5 and 61.6% for Sonnet 5.5, and 72.4% on the offline subset of OSWorld 2.1, a screenshot driven computer use benchmark, compared with 15.7% for Haiku 4.5. It uses the same tokenizer as Claude Opus 4.7 and later models, so the same text counts as roughly 30% more tokens than on Haiku 4.5.
GLM-5.3-Flash is the first natively multimodal model in Z.ai's GLM-5 series, a mixture-of-experts transformer with roughly 320 billion total parameters and 18 billion activated per token. It routes each token through 8 of 288 experts across 45 language layers that interleave KDA linear attention with sparse multi-head latent attention, and pairs them with a 24-layer vision encoder that handles image and video input. The checkpoint declares a maximum context length of 1,048,576 tokens, ships in native FP8, and includes a multi-token prediction draft layer for speculative decoding. Z.ai reports that the hybrid attention design reduces attention computation by 3.01x and KV cache size by 4.44x relative to GLM-5.3.
The model starts from a newly trained base built on a 30 trillion token multimodal pre-training corpus and adopts Manifold-Constrained Hyper-Connections to improve scaling efficiency. Vision is integrated into the coding and agent loop, so the model can inspect interfaces, rendered output, and images while operating across code, browsers, and graphical user interfaces. Z.ai reports scores of 84.3 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 63.4 on DeepSWE 1.1, 55.3 on Humanity's Last Exam with tools, and 48.8 on AutomationBench, and the model exposes low, high, and max thinking modes.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Haiku 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 66.3% (#41 of 61) for GLM 5.3 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Claude Haiku 5.5 leads with 65.8% against 33.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0005 per sample against $0.0005. Claude Haiku 5.5 is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output; GLM 5.3 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GLM 5.3 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.8s per inference against 13.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.