GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-6 Sol
Compare GLM 5.3 Flash and GPT-6 Sol side-by-side.
Compare GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-6 Sol 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 Sol on Vision Evals
GPT-6 Sol scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6 Sol leads 73.6% to 33.1%.
Overall, GLM 5.3 Flash averages 66.3% (#37 of 57) against 80.7% (#10 of 57) for GPT-6 Sol.
GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0005 vs $0.0065 per sample) and faster (6.8s vs 8.1s per sample).
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-6 Sol Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026
| Property | GLM 5.3 Flash | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | undisclosed |
| 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% | 80.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0005 | $0.0065 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.78s | 8.15s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 33.1% | 73.6% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.9 to 74.2 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 75.2% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.9 |
| Counting (low) | 55.4% | 74.8% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 77.0 |
| Counting (high) | – | 76.1% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 78.4 |
| Identification (low) | 84.4% | 91.7% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | – | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | 90.6% | 91.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 92.1 |
| OCR (high) | – | 91.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.2 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 83.5% | 80.4% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 80.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 51.0% | 72.2% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 74.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 59.6% | 77.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 80.8 |
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-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-6 Sol is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI, released on September 22, 2026 alongside GPT-6 Luna as an efficiency-oriented tier of the GPT-6 family that began with GPT-6 Astra. OpenAI states that Sol and Luna are trained with methods similar to those used for Astra, carrying the same work on professional tasks, factuality, coding, computer use, and alignment into models that run faster. Sol accepts text and image input and returns text output, and OpenAI documents a context window of roughly one million tokens together with a knowledge cutoff of April 20, 2026.
The model targets complex coding and agentic workflows and exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with levels of none, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max, which trades latency and token consumption against answer quality. OpenAI reports results including 33.2% on AutomationBench at xhigh effort and 56.4% on Agents' Last Exam at max effort, while its reported DeepSWE and OSWorld 2.0 figures of 68.8% and 64.4% fall below those of the earlier GPT-5.6 Sol. Its vision behavior covers image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, captioning, document and chart interpretation, and text recognition.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 80.7% (#10 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 Sol leads with 73.6% 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 $0.0005 per sample against $0.0065. 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 8.1s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.