Roboflow

GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6.1 Sol

Compare GLM 5V Turbo and GPT-6.1 Sol 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-6.1 Sol 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 5V Turbo
Run to compare this model.
OpenAIGPT-6.1 Sol
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6.1 Sol on Vision Evals

GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 83.7% to 31.8%.

Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 65.3% (#43 of 61) against 85.5% (#4 of 61) for GPT-6.1 Sol.

GLM 5V Turbo is both cheaper ($0.0031 vs $0.0061 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 14.3s per sample).

GLM 5V TurboGPT-6.1 Sol

GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6.1 Sol Comparison Table

Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026

PropertyGLM 5V TurboGPT-6.1 Sol
OrganizationZ.aiOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Sep 2026
Context Window200K1.1M
Parametersundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.20$2.00
Output $/1M$4.00$10.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Promptable Concept SegmentationDemo
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%
85.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0031$0.0061
Avg speed / sample6.35s14.31s
By task
Object Detection (low)
56.5%
$0.0052
80.8%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9
$0.010
Object Detection (high)–
81.6%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0
$0.022
Counting (low)
48.6%
$0.0017
78.8%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4
$0.0037
Counting (high)–
80.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8
$0.0057
Identification (low)
84.4%
$0.0015
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0025
Identification (high)–
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0030
OCR (low)
89.3%
$0.0030
92.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.5
$0.0064
OCR (high)–
91.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.2 to 91.9
$0.017
Data Extraction (low)
81.4%
$0.0018
88.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 88.7
$0.0030
Data Extraction (high)–
90.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7
$0.0037
Reasoning (low)
31.8%
$0.0017
83.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8
$0.0033
Reasoning (high)
49.7%
$0.0069
88.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4
$0.0042

GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6.1 Sol: Overview

GLM 5V Turbo

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-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol is a reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-6 series that accepts text and image input and returns text. It is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol positioned to approach the intelligence of the larger GPT-6 Astra model on agentic coding, computer use, and professional knowledge work. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning effort control, ranging from low settings for simple turns to maximum settings for harder tasks, and can be driven with tool use enabled or disabled. It operates over a context window of roughly one million tokens and emits up to 128,000 output tokens in a single response, which supports long-running agent loops over large codebases and multi-document collections. Audio and video inputs are not supported.

On the visual side, the model is evaluated on GDP.pdf, a benchmark that asks professional questions about complex PDF documents containing tables, charts, diagrams, and fine-print details, and on OSWorld 2.0, which measures agents operating graphical computer applications. OpenAI reports that GPT-6.1 Sol performs on par with or better than GPT-6 Sol across its image input safety evaluations, and that the share of responses containing a factual error at low reasoning effort falls from 11.4 percent to 7.7 percent.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6.1 Sol performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#4 of 61) against 65.3% (#43 of 61) 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-6.1 Sol leads with 83.7% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GLM 5V Turbo is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0031 per sample against $0.0061. GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output; GPT-6.1 Sol is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 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 14.3s. 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.