Gemini 4 Carbon vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Gemini 4 Carbon and GLM 5.3 Flash score 89.4% vs 55.8% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#1 and #49 of 68 models), so Gemini 4 Carbon leads overall.
- Gemini 4 Carbon wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (84.5% vs 33.1%).
- GLM 5.3 Flash is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0001 vs $0.0061 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 4 Carbon is faster: 8.7s vs 9.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Gemini 4 Carbon 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
Gemini 4 Carbon vs GLM 5.3 Flash on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 4 Carbon vs GLM 5.3 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 11, 2026
| Property | Gemini 4 Carbon | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 320B total, 18B active |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | No published price | $0.040 |
| Output $/1M | No published price | $0.078 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 89.4% | 55.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0061 | $0.0001 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.71s | 9.29s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 84.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.8 | 33.1% |
| Object Detection (high) | 85.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.6 to 86.2 | – |
| Counting (low) | 90.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 | 55.4% |
| Counting (high) | 86.9% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.8 to 89.2 | – |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | – |
| OCR (low) | 87.2% | 55.4% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 89.7% | 55.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 91.4% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 93.4 | 51.0% |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.3% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.0 to 92.7 | 59.6% |
Gemini 4 Carbon vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Overview
Gemini 4 Carbon is a multimodal model from Google. It builds on Gemini 4 Argon and supports reasoning over text and images. Google describes improvements in coding and long-running tasks. Model weights are not publicly released.
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Carbon performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 89.4% (#1 of 68) against 55.8% (#49 of 68) 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 Carbon leads with 84.5% 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 $0.0001 per sample against $0.0061. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 4 Carbon is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.7s per inference against 9.3s. 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 image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.