Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GLM 5V Turbo

Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GLM 5V Turbo side-by-side.

Compare Claude Sonnet 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.

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GLM 5V Turbo on Vision Evals

Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 76.4% to 31.8%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 65.3% (#42 of 60) for GLM 5V Turbo.

GLM 5V Turbo is both cheaper ($0.0031 vs $0.0065 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 10.8s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5.5GLM 5V Turbo

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GLM 5V Turbo Comparison Table

Evals updated September 28, 2026Pricing updated September 28, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5.5GLM 5V Turbo
OrganizationAnthropicZ.ai
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M200K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.20
Output $/1M$4.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
83.8%
65.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0065$0.0031
Avg speed / sample10.78s6.35s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.3%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3
$0.0098
56.5%
$0.0052
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3
$0.014
–
Counting (low)
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0042
48.6%
$0.0017
Counting (high)
82.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8
$0.0053
–
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0029
84.4%
$0.0015
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.0033
–
OCR (low)
90.6%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.0 to 91.7
$0.0079
89.3%
$0.0030
OCR (high)
90.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 92.3
$0.011
–
Data Extraction (low)
90.7%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.7 to 92.8
$0.0033
81.4%
$0.0018
Data Extraction (high)
93.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0036
–
Reasoning (low)
76.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8
$0.0049
31.8%
$0.0017
Reasoning (high)
83.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4
$0.0061
49.7%
$0.0069

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GLM 5V Turbo: Overview

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the second release in the Claude 5.5 family, following Claude Opus 5.5. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, operating with a 1M token context window and a maximum output of 128K tokens per request. The model uses adaptive thinking by default, allocating variable reasoning effort per request rather than exposing a manual extended thinking toggle, and its training data cutoff is June 2026. Anthropic positions it as a faster, lower cost complement to Opus 5.5 for well scoped everyday tasks, bug fixing, and producing documents, slides, and spreadsheets.

On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, Sonnet 5.5 scores 61.6% on Chartography, a chart recognition test, compared with 15.6% for Claude Sonnet 5, and 80.1% on OSWorld 2.1, a computer use benchmark measuring screenshot driven control of a desktop environment, compared with 57.0% for Sonnet 5. It reports 70.6% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 for agentic coding. Anthropic describes it as the first Sonnet model able to complete Pokemon Red from screenshots alone, and it generates output more than 30% faster than Sonnet 5 while using fewer tokens for equivalent work.

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 Sonnet 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 65.3% (#42 of 60) 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 Sonnet 5.5 leads with 76.4% 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 $0.0065. 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 10.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.