GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna
Compare GLM 5.3 Flash and GPT-6 Luna side-by-side.
Compare GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna on Vision Evals
GLM 5.3 Flash scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6 Luna leads 56.8% to 33.1%.
Overall, GLM 5.3 Flash averages 66.3% (#37 of 57) against 68.6% (#32 of 57) for GPT-6 Luna.
GPT-6 Luna is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0005 per sample), while GLM 5.3 Flash is faster (6.8s vs 11.3s per sample).
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026
| Property | GLM 5.3 Flash | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | OpenAI |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Parameters | 320B total, 18B active | |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.150 | |
| Output $/1M | $0.500 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | 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% | 68.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0005 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.78s | 11.27s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 33.1% | 56.8% ±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 64.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5 |
| Counting (low) | 55.4% | 65.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6 |
| Counting (high) | – | 64.4% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2 |
| Identification (low) | 84.4% | 81.3% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3 |
| Identification (high) | – | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 90.6% | 87.9% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3 |
| OCR (high) | – | 88.5% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 83.5% | 68.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 66.7% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0 |
| Reasoning (low) | 51.0% | 52.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6 |
| Reasoning (high) | 59.6% | 60.7% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3 |
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna: 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-6 Luna is the fast, cost-efficient tier of OpenAI's GPT-6 model family, sitting below GPT-6 Sol and the larger GPT-6 Astra model that opened the generation. It is a proprietary multimodal transformer that accepts text and image input and returns text, and it exposes an adjustable reasoning effort setting so the same model can run in a low-latency mode or spend additional inference compute on harder problems. OpenAI positions it for high-volume and latency-sensitive workloads such as conversational assistants, classification, and lightweight agentic pipelines, while noting that at higher reasoning effort it handles software engineering and computer-use tasks that previously required a Sol-tier model.
The model supports a context window of roughly 1,050,000 input tokens with a maximum output of 128,000 tokens, which allows long documents, extended agent traces, and large code repositories to be processed in a single request. OpenAI describes the GPT-6 generation as improving factual reliability and adopting a more concise communication style relative to the GPT-5.6 series, and attributes the efficiency of the Sol and Luna tiers to gains in caching and inference rather than to reduced capability. Architecture details, parameter counts, and training data are not published.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Luna performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but GPT-6 Luna averages 68.6% (#32 of 57) against 66.3% (#37 of 57) 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 at low effort, GPT-6 Luna leads with 56.8% against 33.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GPT-6 Luna is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0005. 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 11.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.