GLM 5.3 Flash vs Kimi K3
Compare GLM 5.3 Flash and Kimi K3 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 Kimi K3 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 Kimi K3 on Vision Evals
GLM 5.3 Flash scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Kimi K3 leads 51.9% to 33.1%.
Overall, GLM 5.3 Flash averages 66.3% (#22 of 33) against 66.5% (#20 of 33) for Kimi K3.
GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0002 vs $0.011 per sample) and faster (6.8s vs 12.7s per sample).
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Kimi K3 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026
| Property | GLM 5.3 Flash | Kimi K3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | Moonshot AI |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 320B total, 18B active | 2.8T |
| License | MIT | Modified MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $3.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | 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% | 66.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0002 | $0.011 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.78s | 12.71s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 33.1% $0.0004 | 51.9% $0.020 |
| Counting | 55.4% $0.0001 | 46.0% $0.0046 |
| Identification | 84.4% $0.0001 | 81.3% $0.0041 |
| OCR | 90.6% $0.0002 | 93.0% $0.0094 |
| Data Extraction | 83.5% $0.0001 | 84.5% $0.0046 |
| Reasoning (low) | 51.0% $0.0001 | 42.4% $0.0044 |
| Reasoning (high) | 59.6% $0.0001 | 74.2% $0.037 |
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Kimi K3: 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.
Kimi K3 is a sparse Mixture-of-Experts large language model developed by Moonshot AI, with 2.8 trillion total parameters and a 1-million-token context window. The model activates 16 out of 896 experts per token using the Stable LatentMoE framework, and is built on two architectural innovations: Kimi Delta Attention (KDA), a hybrid linear attention mechanism that enables up to 6.3x faster decoding in long-context settings, and Attention Residuals (AttnRes), which selectively retrieves representations across model depth and delivers roughly 25% higher training efficiency. Together with refined training and data recipes, these structural advances yield approximately 2.5x better overall scaling efficiency compared to its predecessor Kimi K2. The model applies quantization-aware training from the supervised fine-tuning stage onward, using MXFP4 weights with MXFP8 activations for hardware compatibility. Thinking mode is always enabled at launch, with reasoning effort configurable via the reasoning_effort field.
Kimi K3 supports native visual understanding alongside text, accepting image inputs for tasks that combine software engineering and visual reasoning. It targets long-horizon coding, knowledge work, and agentic workflows, and ships in two variants: K3 Max for general chat and agent tasks, and K3 Swarm Max for large-scale parallel processing across many coordinated sub-agents. The model is compatible with the OpenAI SDK via an OpenAI-compatible API. Full model weights are scheduled for release by July 27, 2026 under a Modified MIT license, following the open-weight pattern established by the Kimi K2 model family. A technical report with full architecture, training, and evaluation details is expected to accompany the weights release.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Kimi K3 performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Kimi K3 averages 66.5% (#20 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 Object Detection benchmark, Kimi K3 leads with 51.9% 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 $0.0002 per sample against $0.011. 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 12.7s. 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.