Roboflow

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash

Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Open Prompt.

Compare Gemini 3.8 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.
Z.aiGLM 5.3 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.8 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.8 Flash leads 68.1% to 33.1%.

Overall, Gemini 3.8 Flash averages 85.1% (#3 of 36) against 66.3% (#25 of 36) for GLM 5.3 Flash.

GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0002 vs $0.0033 per sample) and faster (6.8s vs 11.6s per sample).

Gemini 3.8 FlashGLM 5.3 Flash

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated September 2, 2026Pricing updated September 2, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.8 FlashGLM 5.3 Flash
OrganizationGoogleZ.ai
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters320B total, 18B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.075
Output $/1M$0.250
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
85.1%
66.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.0002
Avg speed / sample11.65s6.78s
By task
Object Detection (low)
68.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0
$0.0041
33.1%
$0.0004
Object Detection (high)
74.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.4 to 75.6
$0.021
Counting (low)
78.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1
$0.0036
55.4%
$0.0001
Counting (high)
79.3%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.024
Identification (low)
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0014
84.4%
$0.0001
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0034
OCR (low)
87.3%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 88.2
$0.0024
90.6%
$0.0002
OCR (high)
88.8%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.0 to 89.4
$0.064
Data Extraction (low)
97.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 97.9
$0.0018
83.5%
$0.0001
Data Extraction (high)
94.8%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 95.9
$0.0089
Reasoning (low)
81.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5
$0.0034
51.0%
$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4
$0.021
59.6%
$0.0001

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Overview

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Gemini 3.8 Flash is a natively multimodal reasoning model in Google's Gemini 3 series, positioned as the speed and cost oriented Flash tier while targeting long-horizon software engineering, autonomous agents, and enterprise workflows. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents in a single request and returns text, with an input limit of 1,048,576 tokens and an output limit of 65,536 tokens. Thinking is configurable at low, medium, and high levels, and the model supports function calling, code execution, structured outputs, context caching, search and Maps grounding, file search, and computer use in preview. Image generation, audio generation, and the Live API are not supported.

On vision oriented evaluations the model reports 86.2% on CharXiv Reasoning for chart and figure synthesis and 87.8% on LVBench for long video understanding in agentic mode, alongside 90.8% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and 61.6% on SWE-Bench Pro for coding. Following Gemini API conventions, it can localize objects by emitting bounding boxes as [ymin, xmin, ymax, xmax] integers normalized to a 0 to 1000 range, which supports prompt driven detection and grounding in addition to captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. The knowledge cutoff is March 2026, though coverage in some domains reflects the January 2025 cutoff shared across the Gemini 3 family.

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, Gemini 3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.1% (#3 of 36) against 66.3% (#25 of 36) 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 3.8 Flash leads with 68.1% 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 $0.0033. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GLM 5.3 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.8s per inference against 11.6s. 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 image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.