Roboflow

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and GLM 5.3 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare Claude Opus 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.

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

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5
Run to compare this model.
Z.aiGLM 5.3 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 74.5% to 33.1%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 82.0% (#2 of 61) against 55.8% (#42 of 61) for GLM 5.3 Flash.

GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper ($0.0006 vs $0.015 per sample), while Claude Opus 5.5 is faster (7.6s vs 9.3s per sample).

Claude Opus 5.5GLM 5.3 Flash

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 9, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5.5GLM 5.3 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicZ.ai
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknown320B total, 18B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$4.00$0.150
Output $/1M$20.00$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
82.0%
55.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.015$0.0006
Avg speed / sample7.63s9.29s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0
$0.021
33.1%
$0.0008
Object Detection (high)
76.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.7 to 77.0
$0.030
–
Counting (low)
80.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0081
55.4%
$0.0002
Counting (high)
82.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8
$0.0098
–
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0058
84.4%
$0.0002
Identification (high)
95.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.0067
–
OCR (low)
78.3%
$0.016
55.4%
$0.0007
by category
Single value
67.8%
Transcription
96.7%
Structured JSON
91.5%
Text localization
61.0%
Single value
47.4%
Transcription
81.5%
Structured JSON
72.0%
Text localization
18.6%
OCR (high)
79.9%
$0.023
55.3%
$0.0011
by category
Single value
69.6%
Transcription
96.1%
Structured JSON
94.1%
Text localization
61.1%
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
72.2%
Structured JSON
72.0%
Text localization
14.5%
Reasoning (low)
83.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1
$0.0090
51.0%
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
85.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1
$0.011
59.6%
$0.0003

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Overview

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.

On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.

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 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 82.0% (#2 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 Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 74.5% against 33.1%. 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 $0.015. Claude Opus 5.5 is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 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 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.6s 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 OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.