GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 4.7
Compare GLM 5.3 Flash and Grok 4.7 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 4.7 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 4.7 on Vision Evals
Grok 4.7 scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Grok 4.7 leads 64.2% to 51.0%.
Overall, GLM 5.3 Flash averages 55.8% (#44 of 63) against 63.5% (#31 of 63) for Grok 4.7.
GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0005 vs $0.020 per sample) and faster (9.3s vs 33.3s per sample).
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | GLM 5.3 Flash | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | SpaceXAI |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | — |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 500K |
| Parameters | 320B total, 18B active | Unknown |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | free for commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.026 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.900 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Not listed |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Not listed |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Not listed |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 55.8% | 63.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0005 | $0.020 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.29s | 33.31s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 33.1% | 40.4% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 41.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8 |
| Counting (low) | 55.4% | 61.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5 |
| Counting (high) | – | 60.8% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2 |
| Identification (low) | 84.4% | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 55.4% | 63.6% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 55.3% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 51.0% | 64.2% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9 |
| Reasoning (high) | 59.6% | 66.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2 |
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 4.7: 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.
Grok 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from SpaceXAI that accepts images alongside text and returns text-only output. On visual inputs it supports image captioning, visual question answering, OCR, document and chart question answering, and image classification and tagging, with all results expressed as generated text rather than bounding boxes or masks. Its 500,000 token context window leaves room for several images, long documents, or extended conversations about visual content in a single request.
The model exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with low, medium, high, and xhigh levels (high by default), letting callers trade latency for the amount of deliberation spent on a prompt, including multi-step questions about an image. Built on a larger base model than Grok 4.6 with extended reinforcement learning on harder tasks, it works longer on difficult problems and checks its own work more carefully at the same serving speed. SpaceXAI's launch materials focus on coding and agentic knowledge work and report no image benchmark results.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.7 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 63.5% (#31 of 63) against 55.8% (#44 of 63) 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 Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Grok 4.7 leads with 64.2% against 51.0%. 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 $0.0005 per sample against $0.020. GLM 5.3 Flash is priced at $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.90 per 1M output; Grok 4.7 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 33.3s. 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.