Roboflow

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 FlashGPT-6 Luna

GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026

PropertyGLM 5.3 FlashGPT-6 Luna
OrganizationZ.aiOpenAI
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.1M
Parameters320B total, 18B active
LicenseMITProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.150
Output $/1M$0.500
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
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 / sample6.78s11.27s
By task
Object Detection (low)
33.1%
$0.0008
56.8%
±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
64.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5
$0.0016
Counting (low)
55.4%
$0.0002
65.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6
$0.0003
Counting (high)
64.4%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2
$0.0006
Identification (low)
84.4%
$0.0002
81.3%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3
$0.0002
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0003
OCR (low)
90.6%
$0.0004
87.9%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3
$0.0005
OCR (high)
88.5%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2
$0.0014
Data Extraction (low)
83.5%
$0.0002
68.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
66.7%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0
$0.0004
Reasoning (low)
51.0%
$0.0002
52.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6
$0.0003
Reasoning (high)
59.6%
$0.0003
60.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3
$0.0006

GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna: Overview

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.

GPT-6 Luna

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.