Roboflow

Gemini 4 Argon vs GLM 5.3 Flash

Compare Gemini 4 Argon 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 4 Argon 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 4 Argon
Run to compare this model.
Z.aiGLM 5.3 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 4 Argon vs GLM 5.3 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 4 Argon leads 82.5% to 33.1%.

Overall, Gemini 4 Argon averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 55.8% (#44 of 63) for GLM 5.3 Flash.

GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0005 vs $0.0058 per sample) and faster (9.3s vs 13.4s per sample).

Gemini 4 ArgonGLM 5.3 Flash

Gemini 4 Argon vs GLM 5.3 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026

PropertyGemini 4 ArgonGLM 5.3 Flash
OrganizationGoogleZ.ai
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUndisclosed320B total, 18B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1MNo published price$0.026
Output $/1MNo published price$0.900
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
87.5%
55.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0058$0.0005
Avg speed / sample13.40s9.29s
By task
Object Detection (low)
82.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0
$0.011
33.1%
$0.0007
Object Detection (high)
85.1%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5
$0.027
–
Counting (low)
86.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5
$0.0024
55.4%
$0.0001
Counting (high)
90.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9
$0.010
–
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0024
84.4%
<$0.0001
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0057
–
OCR (low)
85.7%
$0.0051
55.4%
$0.0005
by category
Single value
78.3%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
92.6%
Text localization
81.5%
Single value
47.4%
Transcription
81.5%
Structured JSON
72.0%
Text localization
18.6%
OCR (high)
88.0%
$0.022
55.3%
$0.0012
by category
Single value
80.0%
Transcription
98.8%
Structured JSON
94.8%
Text localization
84.7%
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
72.2%
Structured JSON
72.0%
Text localization
14.5%
Reasoning (low)
89.4%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7
$0.0024
51.0%
$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
91.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0
$0.013
59.6%
$0.0002

Gemini 4 Argon vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Overview

Gemini 4 Argon

Gemini 4 Argon is Google DeepMind's frontier Gemini 4 model, built to sustain extended reasoning across long-horizon workflows in software engineering, enterprise knowledge work such as legal and finance, scientific analysis, and defensive cybersecurity. It accepts text, image, video, and document input and returns text, operating over a one million token context window. The model raises the maximum output length to one million tokens, compared with a 64K ceiling on earlier Gemini releases, so a single reasoning trajectory can run for hundreds of thousands of tokens before terminating.

On the visual side, Argon targets multimodal document comprehension, professional chart analysis, and retrieval of specific details from long recordings, reporting 91.7% on LVBench for long-video understanding and 71.6% on Chartography for chart reasoning. Google also reports 77.9% on DeepSWE v1.1, 51.3% on AutomationBench, 68% on CWE-bench v1, and first place on the Vals Index, which aggregates finance, coding, legal, and tax tasks. Following Gemini API conventions, it localizes 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 alongside captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. Google describes adversarial training and automated red teaming for indirect prompt injection resistance, plus chain-of-thought and action monitors that halt execution when behavior drifts outside user intent.

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 4 Argon performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 87.5% (#1 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 4 Argon leads with 82.5% 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 $0.0005 per sample against $0.0058. 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 13.4s. 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.