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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
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 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 2, 2026Pricing updated September 2, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.8 Flash | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 320B total, 18B active | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.075 | |
| Output $/1M | $0.250 | |
| 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 |
| 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 / sample | 11.65s | 6.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 68.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0 | 33.1% |
| Object Detection (high) | 74.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.4 to 75.6 | – |
| Counting (low) | 78.8% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1 | 55.4% |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 | – |
| Identification (low) | 97.9% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | – |
| OCR (low) | 87.3% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 88.2 | 90.6% |
| OCR (high) | 88.8% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.0 to 89.4 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 97.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 97.9 | 83.5% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 94.8% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 95.9 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 81.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5 | 51.0% |
| Reasoning (high) | 84.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4 | 59.6% |
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Overview
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 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.