Roboflow

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 4.5

Compare GLM 5.3 Flash and Grok 4.5 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 Grok 4.5 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
Z.aiGLM 5.3 Flash
Run to compare this model.
GrokGrok 4.5
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals

Grok 4.5 scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GLM 5.3 Flash leads 33.1% to 19.0%.

Overall, GLM 5.3 Flash averages 55.8% (#42 of 61) against 55.3% (#44 of 61) for Grok 4.5.

GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0006 vs $0.0078 per sample) and faster (9.3s vs 16.4s per sample).

GLM 5.3 FlashGrok 4.5

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 10, 2026

PropertyGLM 5.3 FlashGrok 4.5
OrganizationZ.aiSpaceXAI
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M500K
Parameters320B total, 18B activeUnknown
LicenseMITProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.150$2.00
Output $/1M$0.500$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
55.8%
55.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0006$0.0078
Avg speed / sample9.29s16.41s
By task
Object Detection (low)
33.1%
$0.0008
19.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 18.0 to 19.6
$0.011
Object Detection (high)–
17.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 17.5 to 18.0
$0.020
Counting (low)
55.4%
$0.0002
59.5%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 62.2
$0.0065
Counting (high)–
57.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 60.8
$0.012
Identification (low)
84.4%
$0.0002
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$0.0046
Identification (high)–
85.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0067
OCR (low)
55.4%
$0.0007
57.1%
$0.0065
by category
Single value
47.4%
Transcription
81.5%
Structured JSON
72.0%
Text localization
18.6%
Single value
47.8%
Transcription
85.4%
Structured JSON
80.3%
Text localization
6.1%
OCR (high)
55.3%
$0.0011
57.5%
$0.013
by category
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
72.2%
Structured JSON
72.0%
Text localization
14.5%
Single value
47.8%
Transcription
86.1%
Structured JSON
80.9%
Text localization
7.0%
Reasoning (low)
51.0%
$0.0002
57.6%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 58.9
$0.0082
Reasoning (high)
59.6%
$0.0003
59.8%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 62.3
$0.019

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 4.5: 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.

Grok 4.5

Grok 4.5 is a proprietary reasoning model from SpaceXAI (xAI) that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window. xAI positions it as a model for coding, agentic software work, and knowledge tasks, and states it was trained in the company's Memphis data centers on datasets spanning science, engineering, and mathematics. Its reinforcement learning stage covers hundreds of thousands of multi step software engineering tasks scored by automated checks and model based grading, and training is reported to have run on tens of thousands of NVIDIA GB300 GPUs using an asynchronous scheme in which multi hour agentic rollouts continue while learning proceeds in parallel, targeting long horizon autonomous operation rather than single turn inference.

For vision, the model consumes JPEG and PNG images in any order relative to text prompts, covering visual question answering, description of chart and document imagery, and reading text rendered inside a scene. Reasoning effort is configurable, and the model supports function calling and structured outputs, so image inputs can be interleaved with tool calls inside agent loops. xAI has not published a technical report, architecture details, or parameter count, and reported mixture of experts sizing figures come from secondary coverage rather than official documentation.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.5 performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 55.3% (#44 of 61) against 55.8% (#42 of 61) for GLM 5.3 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GLM 5.3 Flash leads with 33.1% against 19.0%. 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 $0.0006 per sample against $0.0078. GLM 5.3 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output; Grok 4.5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GLM 5.3 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.3s per inference against 16.4s. 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.