Roboflow

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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 2.5 Pro
Run to compare this model.
Z.aiGLM 5.3 Flash
Run to compare this model.

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 ProGLM 5.3 Flash

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM 5.3 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyGemini 2.5 ProGLM 5.3 Flash
OrganizationGoogleZ.ai
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2025Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters320B total, 18B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25
Output $/1M$10.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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 / sample6.11s6.78s
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

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

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.