Roboflow

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Compare GLM 5.3 Flash and Qwen3.7 Flash 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 Qwen3.7 Flash 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.
QwenQwen3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals

GLM 5.3 Flash scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where GLM 5.3 Flash leads 51.0% to 34.4%.

Overall, GLM 5.3 Flash averages 66.3% (#22 of 33) against 61.7% (#30 of 33) for Qwen3.7 Flash.

Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0002 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 6.8s per sample).

GLM 5.3 FlashQwen3.7 Flash

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyGLM 5.3 FlashQwen3.7 Flash
OrganizationZ.aiQwen
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters320B total, 18B active
LicenseMITProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.030
Output $/1M$0.130
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%
61.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0002$0.0001
Avg speed / sample6.78s6.32s
By task
Object Detection
33.1%
$0.0004
42.8%
$0.0001
Counting
55.4%
$0.0001
46.0%
<$0.0001
Identification
84.4%
$0.0001
84.4%
<$0.0001
OCR
90.6%
$0.0002
84.1%
$0.0001
Data Extraction
83.5%
$0.0001
78.3%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (low)
51.0%
$0.0001
34.4%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
59.6%
$0.0001
60.9%
$0.0005

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash: 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.

Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.

Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GLM 5.3 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.3% (#22 of 33) against 61.7% (#30 of 33) for Qwen3.7 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, GLM 5.3 Flash leads with 51.0% against 34.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.0002. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s per inference against 6.8s. 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.