GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-5.6 Luna
Compare GLM 5V Turbo and GPT-5.6 Luna side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-5.6 Luna 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 5V Turbo vs GPT-5.6 Luna on Vision Evals
GPT-5.6 Luna scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Luna leads 55.0% to 31.8%.
Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 65.3% (#25 of 33) against 71.5% (#14 of 33) for GPT-5.6 Luna.
GPT-5.6 Luna is cheaper ($0.0010 vs $0.0031 per sample), while GLM 5V Turbo is faster (6.3s vs 6.5s per sample).
GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-5.6 Luna Comparison Table
Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026
| Property | GLM 5V Turbo | GPT-5.6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.5M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.20 | $0.200 |
| Output $/1M | $4.00 | $1.20 |
| 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 | 65.3% | 71.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0031 | $0.0010 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.35s | 6.55s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 56.5% $0.0052 | 59.9% $0.0015 |
| Counting | 48.6% $0.0017 | 66.2% $0.0007 |
| Identification | 84.4% $0.0015 | 78.1% $0.0004 |
| OCR | 89.3% $0.0030 | 88.4% $0.0012 |
| Data Extraction | 81.4% $0.0018 | 81.4% $0.0004 |
| Reasoning (low) | 31.8% $0.0017 | 55.0% $0.0006 |
| Reasoning (high) | 49.7% $0.0069 | 60.9% $0.0015 |
GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-5.6 Luna: Overview
GLM-5V-Turbo is a native multimodal model from Z.ai that extends the GLM family with joint image, video, and text input aimed at vision-centered coding and agent workflows. The model reads screenshots, design drafts, document layouts, and interface captures and generates runnable code from them, covering tasks such as turning a visual design into a working front end, diagnosing rendering and layout defects from screen captures, and operating graphical user interfaces during long-horizon agent runs. It accepts roughly 200,000 input tokens and can emit up to 131,072 output tokens in a single response, which supports sessions that hold specifications, source files, logs, and visual references at the same time.
Training includes a joint reinforcement learning stage spanning more than 30 tasks simultaneously, an approach Z.ai describes as a way to counter the trade-off in which improving visual recognition degrades programming ability and the reverse. Reported evaluations cover pure-text coding on the backend, frontend, and repository exploration tracks of CC-Bench-V2, together with agent execution suites such as PinchBench, ClawEval, and ZClawBench, indicating that text coding behavior is retained after visual input is added.
GPT-5.6 Luna is the fastest and most cost-efficient model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes Sol (the flagship tier) and Terra (the balanced mid-tier). Introduced under a new naming convention where the generation number (5.6) and a durable capability tier name (Luna, Terra, Sol) together define each model, Luna occupies the lightweight end of the family and is designed for high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads such as summarization, drafting, autocomplete, classification, and routine automation. The GPT-5.6 family as a whole advances capabilities in software engineering, computer use, professional knowledge work, scientific research, and cybersecurity, with all three tiers rated at the "High" capability level under OpenAI's Preparedness Framework for both cybersecurity and biological/chemical risk domains.
GPT-5.6 Luna supports multimodal input and function calling, and shares the family's 1.5 million token context window. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Luna scores 82.5%, and on the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index it outperforms comparable models at roughly one-quarter the estimated cost of higher-tier alternatives. Luna is priced at $1 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens, with cached input reads at $0.10 per million tokens under the GPT-5.6 prompt caching scheme, which introduces explicit cache breakpoints and a 30-minute minimum cache life. The model was previewed on June 26, 2026 to a limited group of trusted partners via the OpenAI API and Codex, with general availability rolling out on July 9, 2026 across ChatGPT, Codex, and the API.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-5.6 Luna performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the six vision tasks and averages 71.5% (#14 of 33) against 65.3% (#25 of 33) for GLM 5V Turbo. 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, GPT-5.6 Luna leads with 55.0% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GPT-5.6 Luna is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0010 per sample against $0.0031. GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output; GPT-5.6 Luna is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.20 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GLM 5V Turbo is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s per inference against 6.5s. 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.