Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM 5V Turbo
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GLM 5V Turbo 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 5V Turbo 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 5V Turbo on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads 48.3% to 31.8%.
Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.7% (#16 of 33) against 65.3% (#25 of 33) for GLM 5V Turbo.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is both cheaper ($0.0014 vs $0.0031 per sample) and faster (2.7s vs 6.3s per sample).
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM 5V Turbo Comparison Table
Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM 5V Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 200K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $1.20 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $4.00 |
| 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 |
| 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% | 65.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0014 | $0.0031 |
| Avg speed / sample | 2.70s | 6.35s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 58.1% $0.0023 | 56.5% $0.0052 |
| Counting | 52.7% $0.0007 | 48.6% $0.0017 |
| Identification | 81.3% $0.0004 | 84.4% $0.0015 |
| OCR | 87.4% $0.0011 | 89.3% $0.0030 |
| Data Extraction | 90.7% $0.0004 | 81.4% $0.0018 |
| Reasoning (low) | 48.3% $0.0012 | 31.8% $0.0017 |
| Reasoning (high) | 68.9% $0.0042 | 49.7% $0.0069 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM 5V Turbo: 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-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, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 69.7% (#16 of 33) against 65.3% (#25 of 33) 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, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads with 48.3% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0014 per sample against $0.0031. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 per 1M output; GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output. 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 6.3s. 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.