GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6 Sol
Compare GLM 5V Turbo and GPT-6 Sol side-by-side.
Compare GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6 Sol 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 Sol on Vision Evals
GPT-6 Sol scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-6 Sol leads 72.2% to 31.8%.
Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 65.3% (#41 of 57) against 80.7% (#10 of 57) for GPT-6 Sol.
GLM 5V Turbo is both cheaper ($0.0031 vs $0.0065 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 8.1s per sample).
GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6 Sol Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026
| Property | GLM 5V Turbo | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.1M |
| Parameters | undisclosed | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.20 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $4.00 | $10.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | 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% | 80.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0031 | $0.0065 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.35s | 8.15s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 56.5% | 73.6% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.9 to 74.2 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 75.2% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.9 |
| Counting (low) | 48.6% | 74.8% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 77.0 |
| Counting (high) | – | 76.1% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 78.4 |
| Identification (low) | 84.4% | 91.7% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | – | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | 89.3% | 91.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 92.1 |
| OCR (high) | – | 91.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.2 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 81.4% | 80.4% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 80.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 31.8% | 72.2% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 74.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 49.7% | 77.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 80.8 |
GLM 5V Turbo vs GPT-6 Sol: 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-6 Sol is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI, released on September 22, 2026 alongside GPT-6 Luna as an efficiency-oriented tier of the GPT-6 family that began with GPT-6 Astra. OpenAI states that Sol and Luna are trained with methods similar to those used for Astra, carrying the same work on professional tasks, factuality, coding, computer use, and alignment into models that run faster. Sol accepts text and image input and returns text output, and OpenAI documents a context window of roughly one million tokens together with a knowledge cutoff of April 20, 2026.
The model targets complex coding and agentic workflows and exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with levels of none, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max, which trades latency and token consumption against answer quality. OpenAI reports results including 33.2% on AutomationBench at xhigh effort and 56.4% on Agents' Last Exam at max effort, while its reported DeepSWE and OSWorld 2.0 figures of 68.8% and 64.4% fall below those of the earlier GPT-5.6 Sol. Its vision behavior covers image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, captioning, document and chart interpretation, and text recognition.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 80.7% (#10 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 Sol leads with 72.2% 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 $0.0065. GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output; GPT-6 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 8.1s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.