Claude Opus 5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Compare Claude Opus 5 and GLM 5.3 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and Classification.
Compare Claude Opus 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash on Vision Evals
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Opus 5 leads 54.4% to 33.1%.
Overall, Claude Opus 5 averages 77.1% (#9 of 33) against 66.3% (#22 of 33) for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0002 vs $0.017 per sample) and faster (6.8s vs 7.4s per sample).
Claude Opus 5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5 | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Z.ai |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 320B total, 18B active | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Image Tagging | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 77.1% | 66.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.017 | $0.0002 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.38s | 6.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 54.4% $0.027 | 33.1% $0.0004 |
| Counting | 70.3% $0.0096 | 55.4% $0.0001 |
| Identification | 84.4% $0.0072 | 84.4% $0.0001 |
| OCR | 93.2% $0.020 | 90.6% $0.0002 |
| Data Extraction | 88.7% $0.0080 | 83.5% $0.0001 |
| Reasoning (low) | 71.5% $0.010 | 51.0% $0.0001 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.2% $0.018 | 59.6% $0.0001 |
Claude Opus 5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Overview
Claude Opus 5 is a large language model with multimodal vision capabilities developed by Anthropic, released on July 24, 2026 as the fourth model in the Claude 5 family. It sits in the Opus tier of Anthropic's lineup, positioned below the Mythos-class Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models, and is framed by Anthropic as the go-to model for most knowledge work and automation tasks. The model approaches Fable 5's capabilities at roughly half the cost, priced at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. It becomes the default model on Claude Max and the strongest model available on Claude Pro. The model ships with a 1 million token context window and an adjustable "effort" parameter that allows users to trade reasoning depth for speed and token savings. Early enterprise customers reported that Opus 5 achieved comparable performance to Opus 4.8's maximum-reasoning mode while generating significantly fewer tokens on average, and demonstrated higher accuracy on financial modeling tasks with fewer tool calls and less time.
Claude Opus 5 supports multimodal inputs including images and text, and is designed for agentic workflows, coding, scientific research, and complex enterprise tasks. Anthropic reports the model scores 10.2 percentage points higher than Opus 4.8 on an internal chemistry benchmark, making it the most capable generally available model for scientific research in the Claude lineup. Cyber classifiers on Opus 5 are designed to intervene approximately 85 percent less often than those on Fable 5, with fallback to Opus 4.8 when a classifier triggers. The model does not retain user data for 30 days, unlike Fable 5. It is available across Anthropic's platforms including Claude Code and Claude Cowork, as well as cloud partners.
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 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 77.1% (#9 of 33) against 66.3% (#22 of 33) 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, Claude Opus 5 leads with 54.4% 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 $0.0002 per sample against $0.017. 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 7.4s. 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.