Roboflow

GLM 5V Turbo vs Grok 4.7

Compare GLM 5V Turbo and Grok 4.7 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 Grok 4.7 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.
GrokGrok 4.7
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GLM 5V Turbo vs Grok 4.7 on Vision Evals

Grok 4.7 scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Grok 4.7 leads 64.2% to 31.8%.

Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 54.6% (#47 of 61) against 63.5% (#29 of 61) for Grok 4.7.

GLM 5V Turbo is both cheaper ($0.0037 vs $0.020 per sample) and faster (5.9s vs 33.3s per sample).

GLM 5V TurboGrok 4.7

GLM 5V Turbo vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 10, 2026

PropertyGLM 5V TurboGrok 4.7
OrganizationZ.aiSpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodal—
Release DateApr 2026Sep 2026
Context Window200K500K
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.20$2.00
Output $/1M$4.00$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedNot listed
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedNot listed
Multimodal VisionSupportedNot listed
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
54.6%
63.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0037$0.020
Avg speed / sample5.89s33.31s
By task
Object Detection (low)
56.5%
$0.0052
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.021
Object Detection (high)–
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.028
Counting (low)
48.6%
$0.0017
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.011
Counting (high)–
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.017
Identification (low)
84.4%
$0.0015
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0063
Identification (high)–
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0093
OCR (low)
51.5%
$0.0039
63.6%
$0.023
by category
Single value
43.0%
Transcription
78.0%
Structured JSON
67.5%
Text localization
17.7%
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
89.5%
Structured JSON
86.4%
Text localization
14.8%
OCR (high)
56.0%
$0.0080
–
by category
Single value
44.4%
Transcription
77.8%
Structured JSON
69.6%
Text localization
38.7%
Reasoning (low)
31.8%
$0.0017
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.015
Reasoning (high)
49.7%
$0.0069
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.024

GLM 5V Turbo vs Grok 4.7: 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.

Grok 4.7

Grok 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from SpaceXAI that accepts images alongside text and returns text-only output. On visual inputs it supports image captioning, visual question answering, OCR, document and chart question answering, and image classification and tagging, with all results expressed as generated text rather than bounding boxes or masks. Its 500,000 token context window leaves room for several images, long documents, or extended conversations about visual content in a single request.

The model exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with low, medium, high, and xhigh levels (high by default), letting callers trade latency for the amount of deliberation spent on a prompt, including multi-step questions about an image. Built on a larger base model than Grok 4.6 with extended reinforcement learning on harder tasks, it works longer on difficult problems and checks its own work more carefully at the same serving speed. SpaceXAI's launch materials focus on coding and agentic knowledge work and report no image benchmark results.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.7 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 63.5% (#29 of 61) against 54.6% (#47 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, Grok 4.7 leads with 64.2% 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 $0.0037 per sample against $0.020. GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output; Grok 4.7 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 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 5.9s per inference against 33.3s. 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.