Roboflow

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 4.6

Compare GLM 5.3 Flash and Grok 4.6 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 4.6 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 4.6
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 4.6 on Vision Evals

Grok 4.6 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Grok 4.6 leads 70.3% to 55.4%.

Overall, GLM 5.3 Flash averages 66.3% (#22 of 33) against 67.8% (#17 of 33) for Grok 4.6.

GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0002 vs $0.0069 per sample) and faster (6.8s vs 7.4s per sample).

GLM 5.3 FlashGrok 4.6

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 4.6 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026

PropertyGLM 5.3 FlashGrok 4.6
OrganizationZ.aiSpaceXAI
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M500K
Parameters320B total, 18B active
LicenseMITProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00
Output $/1M$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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%
67.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0002$0.0069
Avg speed / sample6.78s7.39s
By task
Object Detection
33.1%
$0.0004
20.2%
$0.0068
Counting
55.4%
$0.0001
70.3%
$0.0074
Identification
84.4%
$0.0001
78.1%
$0.0048
OCR
90.6%
$0.0002
92.0%
$0.0086
Data Extraction
83.5%
$0.0001
84.5%
$0.0042
Reasoning (low)
51.0%
$0.0001
61.6%
$0.0087
Reasoning (high)
59.6%
$0.0001
61.6%
$0.027

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 4.6: 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 4.6

Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family, and it can also return object detection boxes as text coordinates when prompted.

xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.6 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 67.8% (#17 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 Counting benchmark, Grok 4.6 leads with 70.3% against 55.4%. 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 $0.0069. 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 7.4s. 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.