GLM 5.3 Flash vs GLM 5V Turbo
Compare GLM 5.3 Flash and GLM 5V Turbo side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare GLM 5.3 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GLM 5V Turbo on Vision Evals
GLM 5.3 Flash scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GLM 5V Turbo leads 56.5% to 33.1%.
Overall, GLM 5.3 Flash averages 66.3% (#22 of 33) against 65.3% (#25 of 33) for GLM 5V Turbo.
GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper ($0.0002 vs $0.0031 per sample), while GLM 5V Turbo is faster (6.3s vs 6.8s per sample).
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GLM 5V Turbo Comparison Table
Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026
| Property | GLM 5.3 Flash | GLM 5V Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | Z.ai |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 200K |
| Parameters | 320B total, 18B active | |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.20 | |
| Output $/1M | $4.00 | |
| 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 | 66.3% | 65.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0002 | $0.0031 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.78s | 6.35s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 33.1% $0.0004 | 56.5% $0.0052 |
| Counting | 55.4% $0.0001 | 48.6% $0.0017 |
| Identification | 84.4% $0.0001 | 84.4% $0.0015 |
| OCR | 90.6% $0.0002 | 89.3% $0.0030 |
| Data Extraction | 83.5% $0.0001 | 81.4% $0.0018 |
| Reasoning (low) | 51.0% $0.0001 | 31.8% $0.0017 |
| Reasoning (high) | 59.6% $0.0001 | 49.7% $0.0069 |
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GLM 5V Turbo: Overview
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.
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, GLM 5.3 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.3% (#22 of 33) against 65.3% (#25 of 33) for GLM 5V Turbo. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, GLM 5V Turbo leads with 56.5% 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 $0.0002 per sample against $0.0031. 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 6.8s. 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.