Roboflow

GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6 Luna

Compare GLM 5V Turbo and GPT-6 Luna side-by-side.

Compare GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6 Luna live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6 Luna on Vision Evals

GLM 5V Turbo scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-6 Luna leads 52.1% to 31.8%.

Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 65.3% (#41 of 57) against 68.6% (#32 of 57) for GPT-6 Luna.

GPT-6 Luna is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0031 per sample), while GLM 5V Turbo is faster (6.3s vs 11.3s per sample).

GLM 5V TurboGPT-6 Luna

GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6 Luna Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026

PropertyGLM 5V TurboGPT-6 Luna
OrganizationZ.aiOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Sep 2026
Context Window200K1.1M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.20$0.100
Output $/1M$4.00$0.500
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
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%
68.6%
Avg cost / sample$0.0031$0.0004
Avg speed / sample6.35s11.27s
By task
Object Detection (low)
56.5%
$0.0052
56.8%
±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
64.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5
$0.0016
Counting (low)
48.6%
$0.0017
65.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6
$0.0003
Counting (high)
64.4%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2
$0.0006
Identification (low)
84.4%
$0.0015
81.3%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3
$0.0002
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0003
OCR (low)
89.3%
$0.0030
87.9%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3
$0.0005
OCR (high)
88.5%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2
$0.0014
Data Extraction (low)
81.4%
$0.0018
68.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
66.7%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0
$0.0004
Reasoning (low)
31.8%
$0.0017
52.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6
$0.0003
Reasoning (high)
49.7%
$0.0069
60.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3
$0.0006

GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6 Luna: 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 Luna

GPT-6 Luna is the fast, cost-efficient tier of OpenAI's GPT-6 model family, sitting below GPT-6 Sol and the larger GPT-6 Astra model that opened the generation. It is a proprietary multimodal transformer that accepts text and image input and returns text, and it exposes an adjustable reasoning effort setting so the same model can run in a low-latency mode or spend additional inference compute on harder problems. OpenAI positions it for high-volume and latency-sensitive workloads such as conversational assistants, classification, and lightweight agentic pipelines, while noting that at higher reasoning effort it handles software engineering and computer-use tasks that previously required a Sol-tier model.

The model supports a context window of roughly 1,050,000 input tokens with a maximum output of 128,000 tokens, which allows long documents, extended agent traces, and large code repositories to be processed in a single request. OpenAI describes the GPT-6 generation as improving factual reliability and adopting a more concise communication style relative to the GPT-5.6 series, and attributes the efficiency of the Sol and Luna tiers to gains in caching and inference rather than to reduced capability. Architecture details, parameter counts, and training data are not published.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Luna performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but GPT-6 Luna averages 68.6% (#32 of 57) against 65.3% (#41 of 57) 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 Luna leads with 52.1% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-6 Luna is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0031. GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output; GPT-6 Luna is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 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 11.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.