Roboflow

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GLM 5V Turbo

Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash and GLM 5V Turbo 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 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.
Z.aiGLM 5V Turbo
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GLM 5V Turbo on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.8 Flash leads 81.2% to 31.8%.

Overall, Gemini 3.8 Flash averages 85.1% (#3 of 36) against 65.3% (#28 of 36) for GLM 5V Turbo.

GLM 5V Turbo is both cheaper ($0.0031 vs $0.0033 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 11.6s per sample).

Gemini 3.8 FlashGLM 5V Turbo

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GLM 5V Turbo Comparison Table

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

PropertyGemini 3.8 FlashGLM 5V Turbo
OrganizationGoogleZ.ai
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M200K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.20
Output $/1M$4.00
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%
65.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.0031
Avg speed / sample11.65s6.35s
By task
Object Detection (low)
68.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0
$0.0041
56.5%
$0.0052
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
48.6%
$0.0017
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%
$0.0015
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
89.3%
$0.0030
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
81.4%
$0.0018
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
31.8%
$0.0017
Reasoning (high)
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4
$0.021
49.7%
$0.0069

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GLM 5V Turbo: 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 5V Turbo

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 3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.1% (#3 of 36) against 65.3% (#28 of 36) 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 3.8 Flash leads with 81.2% 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 $0.0033. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GLM 5V Turbo is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s 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.