Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash 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 vs GLM 5.3 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 70.6% to 33.1%.
Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash averages 81.8% (#4 of 63) against 55.8% (#44 of 63) for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0002 vs $0.012 per sample) and faster (9.3s vs 11.5s per sample).
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 19, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 320B total, 18B active |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.50 | $0.035 |
| Output $/1M | $9.00 | $0.200 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 81.8% | 55.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.012 | $0.0002 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.52s | 9.29s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 70.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.7 to 72.6 | 33.1% |
| Object Detection (high) | 69.8% ±1.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.5 to 71.1 | – |
| Counting (low) | 80.6% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 81.1 | 55.4% |
| Counting (high) | 82.4% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 82.4 | – |
| Identification (low) | 99.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 97.9% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | – |
| OCR (low) | 76.7% | 55.4% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 75.5% | 55.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 82.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 84.1 | 51.0% |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.0% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 82.8 | 59.6% |
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Overview
Gemini 3.5 Flash is a multimodal language model developed by Google DeepMind and released at Google I/O 2026. It is built on the Gemini 3 Flash reasoning foundation and introduces configurable thinking levels (minimal, low, medium, and high) that allow developers to tune the depth of internal reasoning before a response is generated. The model accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs and produces text output, with a 1 million token context window and up to 65,000 output tokens per request. It is natively multimodal, processing visual inputs alongside text to support tasks such as image captioning, classification, optical character recognition, object detection, and visual grounding, where the model references specific regions within an image or video frame.
Its vision capabilities extend to interpreting UI screenshots, diagrams, charts, and real-world scenes, as well as understanding video and live frame sequences for activity and scene recognition. The model supports combined tool use, including Google Search, URL context, code execution, and custom functions, within a single request, and it uses reasoning context from previous turns when thought signatures are present in the conversation history, enabling persistent multi-turn reasoning chains. Gemini 3.5 Flash carries a knowledge cutoff of January 2026 and is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, and the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform.
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, Gemini 3.5 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 81.8% (#4 of 63) against 55.8% (#44 of 63) for GLM 5.3 Flash. 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 at low effort, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads with 70.6% 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 $0.012. Gemini 3.5 Flash is priced at $1.50 per 1M input tokens and $9.00 per 1M output; GLM 5.3 Flash is priced at $0.04 per 1M input tokens and $0.20 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GLM 5.3 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.3s per inference against 11.5s. 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 open prompts and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.