Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.3 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro 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
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM 5.3 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Identification, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 93.8% to 84.4%.
Overall, Gemini 2.5 Pro averages 66.0% (#23 of 33) against 66.3% (#22 of 33) for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper ($0.0002 vs $0.0050 per sample), while Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster (6.1s vs 6.8s per sample).
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM 5.3 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 320B total, 18B active | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 66.0% | 66.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0050 | $0.0002 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.11s | 6.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 33.9% $0.010 | 33.1% $0.0004 |
| Counting | 52.7% $0.0012 | 55.4% $0.0001 |
| Identification | 93.8% $0.0012 | 84.4% $0.0001 |
| OCR | 88.8% $0.0047 | 90.6% $0.0002 |
| Data Extraction | 84.5% $0.0013 | 83.5% $0.0001 |
| Reasoning (low) | 42.4% $0.0013 | 51.0% $0.0001 |
| Reasoning (high) | 62.3% $0.011 | 59.6% $0.0001 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.
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, GLM 5.3 Flash performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but GLM 5.3 Flash averages 66.3% (#22 of 33) against 66.0% (#23 of 33) for Gemini 2.5 Pro. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Identification benchmark, Gemini 2.5 Pro leads with 93.8% against 84.4%. 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 $0.0050. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.1s per inference against 6.8s. 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 object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.