Roboflow

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5V Turbo

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and GLM 5V Turbo 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 5V Turbo 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 5V Turbo
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5V Turbo on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 83.0% to 31.8%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 82.0% (#2 of 61) against 54.6% (#47 of 61) for GLM 5V Turbo.

GLM 5V Turbo is both cheaper ($0.0037 vs $0.015 per sample) and faster (5.9s vs 7.6s per sample).

Claude Opus 5.5GLM 5V Turbo

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5V Turbo Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 11, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5.5GLM 5V Turbo
OrganizationAnthropicZ.ai
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M200K
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$4.00$1.20
Output $/1M$20.00$4.00
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%
54.6%
Avg cost / sample$0.015$0.0037
Avg speed / sample7.63s5.89s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0
$0.021
56.5%
$0.0052
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
48.6%
$0.0017
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%
$0.0015
Identification (high)
95.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.0067
–
OCR (low)
78.3%
$0.016
51.5%
$0.0039
by category
Single value
67.8%
Transcription
96.7%
Structured JSON
91.5%
Text localization
61.0%
Single value
43.0%
Transcription
78.0%
Structured JSON
67.5%
Text localization
17.7%
OCR (high)
79.9%
$0.023
56.0%
$0.0080
by category
Single value
69.6%
Transcription
96.1%
Structured JSON
94.1%
Text localization
61.1%
Single value
44.4%
Transcription
77.8%
Structured JSON
69.6%
Text localization
38.7%
Reasoning (low)
83.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1
$0.0090
31.8%
$0.0017
Reasoning (high)
85.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1
$0.011
49.7%
$0.0069

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5V Turbo: 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 5V Turbo

GLM-5V-Turbo is a native multimodal model from Z.ai that extends the GLM family with joint image, video, and text input aimed at vision-centered coding and agent workflows. The model reads screenshots, design drafts, document layouts, and interface captures and generates runnable code from them, covering tasks such as turning a visual design into a working front end, diagnosing rendering and layout defects from screen captures, and operating graphical user interfaces during long-horizon agent runs. It accepts roughly 200,000 input tokens and can emit up to 131,072 output tokens in a single response, which supports sessions that hold specifications, source files, logs, and visual references at the same time.

Training includes a joint reinforcement learning stage spanning more than 30 tasks simultaneously, an approach Z.ai describes as a way to counter the trade-off in which improving visual recognition degrades programming ability and the reverse. Reported evaluations cover pure-text coding on the backend, frontend, and repository exploration tracks of CC-Bench-V2, together with agent execution suites such as PinchBench, ClawEval, and ZClawBench, indicating that text coding behavior is retained after visual input is added.

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 54.6% (#47 of 61) for GLM 5V Turbo. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 83.0% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GLM 5V Turbo is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0037 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 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GLM 5V Turbo is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.9s per inference against 7.6s. 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.