Roboflow

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GLM 5.3 Flash

Compare Claude Opus 4.8 and GLM 5.3 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Classification, OCR, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare Claude Opus 4.8 vs GLM 5.3 Flash live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.8
Run to compare this model.
Z.aiGLM 5.3 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GLM 5.3 Flash on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is OCR, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 61.5% to 55.4%.

Overall, Claude Opus 4.8 averages 58.3% (#36 of 61) against 55.8% (#42 of 61) for GLM 5.3 Flash.

GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper ($0.0006 vs $0.021 per sample), while Claude Opus 4.8 is faster (7.7s vs 9.3s per sample).

Claude Opus 4.8GLM 5.3 Flash

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GLM 5.3 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 10, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 4.8GLM 5.3 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicZ.ai
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMay 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknown320B total, 18B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$0.150
Output $/1M$25.00$0.500
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
58.3%
55.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.021$0.0006
Avg speed / sample7.66s9.29s
By task
Object Detection
38.6%
$0.026
33.1%
$0.0008
Counting
54.0%
$0.0076
55.4%
$0.0002
Identification
84.4%
$0.0067
84.4%
$0.0002
OCR (low)
61.5%
$0.025
55.4%
$0.0007
by category
Single value
53.0%
Transcription
70.8%
Structured JSON
82.4%
Text localization
24.2%
Single value
47.4%
Transcription
81.5%
Structured JSON
72.0%
Text localization
18.6%
OCR (high)
62.1%
$0.038
55.3%
$0.0011
by category
Single value
54.8%
Transcription
67.0%
Structured JSON
83.5%
Text localization
23.6%
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
72.2%
Structured JSON
72.0%
Text localization
14.5%
Reasoning (low)
53.0%
$0.0078
51.0%
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
52.3%
$0.0078
59.6%
$0.0003

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Overview

Claude Opus 4.8

Claude Opus 4.8 is Anthropic's most capable generally available large language model, released on May 28, 2026 as an incremental upgrade to Claude Opus 4.7. The model accepts text and image inputs and produces text outputs, with a 1 million token context window on the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, and Google Cloud Vertex AI (200k tokens on Microsoft Foundry) and up to 128k max output tokens. It uses adaptive thinking and supports adjustable effort tiers — high by default, with extra and max tiers available for more demanding tasks. A fast mode operates at approximately 2.5x standard speed. The model is described by Anthropic as a hybrid reasoning model designed for advanced coding, agentic workflows, long-context reasoning, and professional knowledge work.

Key behavioral improvements over Opus 4.7 include substantially reduced rates of unreported code flaws, improved honesty in self-assessment, and better tool-calling reliability. On Anthropic's Super-Agent benchmark, Opus 4.8 completes every case end-to-end, and it scores 84% on Online-Mind2Web for computer-use and browser-agent tasks. It achieves 88.6% on SWE-bench Verified and 69.2% on SWE-bench Pro. Alongside the model, Anthropic launched Dynamic Workflows in Claude Code (research preview), which enables Claude to orchestrate hundreds of parallel subagents for codebase-scale tasks such as large migrations. The Messages API was also updated to accept mid-task system messages without breaking prompt caching, improving support for long-running agentic pipelines.

GLM 5.3 Flash

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 Opus 4.8 performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 58.3% (#36 of 61) against 55.8% (#42 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 OCR benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 61.5% against 55.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0006 per sample against $0.021. Claude Opus 4.8 is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $25.00 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.

Claude Opus 4.8 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.7s per inference against 9.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.