Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GLM 5.3 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM 5.3 Flash on Vision Evals
GLM 5.3 Flash scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads 58.1% to 33.1%.
Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.7% (#16 of 33) against 66.3% (#22 of 33) for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper ($0.0002 vs $0.0014 per sample), while Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster (2.7s vs 6.8s per sample).
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM 5.3 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 320B total, 18B active | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | |
| 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 |
| Video Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 69.7% | 66.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0014 | $0.0002 |
| Avg speed / sample | 2.70s | 6.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 58.1% $0.0023 | 33.1% $0.0004 |
| Counting | 52.7% $0.0007 | 55.4% $0.0001 |
| Identification | 81.3% $0.0004 | 84.4% $0.0001 |
| OCR | 87.4% $0.0011 | 90.6% $0.0002 |
| Data Extraction | 90.7% $0.0004 | 83.5% $0.0001 |
| Reasoning (low) | 48.3% $0.0012 | 51.0% $0.0001 |
| Reasoning (high) | 68.9% $0.0042 | 59.6% $0.0001 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Overview
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model developed by Google DeepMind, released on July 21, 2026 as part of the Gemini 3.5 model family. It is the fastest model in the 3.5 series, designed for both low-latency tasks and high-throughput production workloads such as agentic search, document processing, receipt translation, and large-scale data extraction. The model accepts text, images, audio, and video as inputs, with a context window of up to 1 million tokens, and produces text output. It supports configurable thinking levels, allowing developers to tune the balance between response quality, cost, and latency depending on workload requirements.
On agentic and coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms its predecessor, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, including on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (54% vs. 31%), GDM-MRCR v2 long-context (72.2% vs. 60.1%), and real-world task execution as measured by GDPval-AA v2 (1140 vs. 642). It also surpasses Gemini 3 Flash on SWE-Bench Pro (54.2% vs. 49.6%) and OSWorld-Verified (74.0% vs. 65.1%). According to the Artificial Analysis Index, the model generates output at approximately 350 tokens per second. It is built on the Gemini 3.5 Flash foundation and is evaluated across reasoning, coding, multimodal understanding, multilingual performance, and long-context tasks. The model is developed under Google's Frontier Safety Framework.
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 better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.3% (#22 of 33) against 69.7% (#16 of 33) for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads with 58.1% against 33.1%. 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 $0.0014. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 2.7s 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.