Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GLM 5V Turbo
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash and GLM 5V Turbo side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Classification, Image Captioning, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash vs GLM 5V Turbo on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 80.1% to 31.8%.
Overall, Gemini 3.6 Flash averages 83.5% (#4 of 33) against 65.3% (#25 of 33) for GLM 5V Turbo.
GLM 5V Turbo is cheaper ($0.0031 vs $0.0032 per sample), while Gemini 3.6 Flash is faster (4.7s vs 6.3s per sample).
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GLM 5V Turbo Comparison Table
Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.6 Flash | 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 | $0.750 | $1.20 |
| Output $/1M | $3.75 | $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 | 83.5% | 65.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0032 | $0.0031 |
| Avg speed / sample | 4.73s | 6.35s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 58.3% $0.0041 | 56.5% $0.0052 |
| Counting | 82.4% $0.0032 | 48.6% $0.0017 |
| Identification | 96.9% $0.0015 | 84.4% $0.0015 |
| OCR | 88.4% $0.0025 | 89.3% $0.0030 |
| Data Extraction | 94.8% $0.0015 | 81.4% $0.0018 |
| Reasoning (low) | 80.1% $0.0031 | 31.8% $0.0017 |
| Reasoning (high) | 80.1% $0.0085 | 49.7% $0.0069 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GLM 5V Turbo: Overview
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a multimodal language model from Google DeepMind, positioned as the workhorse tier in the Gemini 3.x family. It accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs with a 1 million token context window and produces up to 64,000 output tokens. The model builds directly on Gemini 3.5 Flash, incorporating developer and customer feedback to improve token efficiency, coding quality, and knowledge work performance. According to the Artificial Analysis Index, it consumes 17% fewer output tokens than its predecessor, and on some benchmarks such as DeepSWE, token reduction reaches up to 65%. It supports function calling, structured output, search as a tool, and code execution, and includes computer use as a built-in capability in the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise.
On coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on DeepSWE versus 37% for 3.5 Flash, and 63.9% on MLE Bench versus 49.7%. Computer use performance on OSWorld-Verified improves from 78.4% to 83%, and knowledge work scores on GDPval-AA v2 rise from 1349 to 1421. The model carries a knowledge cutoff of March 2026 and ships with enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards covering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber offense domains, with training to minimize refusals for beneficial uses. It is a proprietary, closed-weights model available in preview through the Gemini API via Google AI Studio, Android Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise, and the Gemini app.
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 3.6 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.5% (#4 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 3.6 Flash leads with 80.1% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GLM 5V Turbo is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0031 per sample against $0.0032. Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 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 3.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.7s 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 open prompts and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.