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 5.5 vs GLM 5V Turbo Comparison Table
Evals updated September 28, 2026Pricing updated September 28, 2026
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | GLM 5V Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Z.ai |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 200K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.20 | |
| Output $/1M | $4.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| 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 / sample | 10.78s | 6.35s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.3% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3 | 56.5% |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.8% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3 | – |
| Counting (low) | 79.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7 | 48.6% |
| Counting (high) | 82.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8 | – |
| Identification (low) | 91.7% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 | – |
| OCR (low) | 90.6% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.0 to 91.7 | 89.3% |
| OCR (high) | 90.9% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 92.3 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 90.7% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.7 to 92.8 | 81.4% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 93.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 76.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8 | 31.8% |
| Reasoning (high) | 83.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4 | 49.7% |
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GLM 5V Turbo: Overview
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 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.