Roboflow

Claude Opus 5 vs GLM 5V Turbo

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

Models in this comparison

Anthropic

Claude Opus 5 vs GLM 5V Turbo on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 71.5% to 31.8%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5 averages 77.1% (#9 of 33) against 65.3% (#25 of 33) for GLM 5V Turbo.

GLM 5V Turbo is both cheaper ($0.0031 vs $0.017 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 7.4s per sample).

Claude Opus 5GLM 5V Turbo

Claude Opus 5 vs GLM 5V Turbo Comparison Table

Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5GLM 5V Turbo
OrganizationAnthropicZ.ai
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M200K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$1.20
Output $/1M$25.00$4.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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%
65.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.017$0.0031
Avg speed / sample7.38s6.35s
By task
Object Detection
54.4%
$0.027
56.5%
$0.0052
Counting
70.3%
$0.0096
48.6%
$0.0017
Identification
84.4%
$0.0072
84.4%
$0.0015
OCR
93.2%
$0.020
89.3%
$0.0030
Data Extraction
88.7%
$0.0080
81.4%
$0.0018
Reasoning (low)
71.5%
$0.010
31.8%
$0.0017
Reasoning (high)
74.2%
$0.018
49.7%
$0.0069

Claude Opus 5 vs GLM 5V Turbo: Overview

Claude Opus 5

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 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 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 77.1% (#9 of 33) against 65.3% (#25 of 33) 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 leads with 71.5% 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 $0.0031 per sample against $0.017. Claude Opus 5 is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $25.00 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 6.3s 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.