GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Compare GLM 5.3 Flash and GPT-5.6 Sol 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 GPT-5.6 Sol 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 GPT-5.6 Sol on Vision Evals
GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 68.2% to 33.1%.
Overall, GLM 5.3 Flash averages 66.3% (#22 of 33) against 76.9% (#10 of 33) for GPT-5.6 Sol.
GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0002 vs $0.0089 per sample) and faster (6.8s vs 11.7s per sample).
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Sol Comparison Table
Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026
| Property | GLM 5.3 Flash | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | OpenAI |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.5M |
| Parameters | 320B total, 18B active | |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | |
| 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% | 76.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0002 | $0.0089 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.78s | 11.72s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 33.1% $0.0004 | 68.2% $0.016 |
| Counting | 55.4% $0.0001 | 73.0% $0.0048 |
| Identification | 84.4% $0.0001 | 81.3% $0.0027 |
| OCR | 90.6% $0.0002 | 90.7% $0.011 |
| Data Extraction | 83.5% $0.0001 | 82.5% $0.0033 |
| Reasoning (low) | 51.0% $0.0001 | 65.6% $0.0042 |
| Reasoning (high) | 59.6% $0.0001 | 72.2% $0.0057 |
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Sol: 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.
GPT-5.6 Sol is the flagship model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes Terra (a balanced everyday-work tier) and Luna (a fast, cost-efficient tier). Sol is designed for demanding reasoning, long-horizon agentic workflows, software engineering, computer use, scientific research, and cybersecurity tasks. It introduces two new capability modes: a "max" reasoning effort setting that allocates additional compute time for difficult problems, and an "ultra" mode that coordinates multiple subagents in parallel to accelerate complex, multi-step work. The model supports native multimodal input, allowing it to process screenshots, diagrams, charts, documents, and photographs alongside text. A reported context window of approximately 1.5 million tokens enables processing of large codebases, lengthy research documents, and extended agentic sessions.
GPT-5.6 Sol was announced on June 26, 2026, initially in a limited preview for trusted partners, and reached general availability on July 9, 2026. On the Agents' Last Exam benchmark, which evaluates long-running professional workflows across 55 fields, Sol scores 53.6. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, which tests command-line agentic coding workflows, Sol Ultra achieves 91.9%. The model also demonstrates gains in life sciences evaluations, including long-horizon genomics and quantitative biology analyses. OpenAI paired the release with its most extensive safety evaluation to date, combining human red teaming with large-scale automated testing, and classified Sol as High capability in both cybersecurity and biological risk under its Preparedness Framework, though it does not cross the Critical threshold in either category.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-5.6 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 76.9% (#10 of 33) against 66.3% (#22 of 33) for GLM 5.3 Flash. 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, GPT-5.6 Sol leads with 68.2% 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 $0.0089. 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 11.7s. 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.