Roboflow

GLM 5V Turbo vs Kimi K3

Compare GLM 5V Turbo and Kimi K3 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 Kimi K3 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.
MoonshotAIKimi K3
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

MoonshotAI

GLM 5V Turbo vs Kimi K3 on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Kimi K3 leads 42.4% to 31.8%.

Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 65.3% (#25 of 33) against 66.5% (#20 of 33) for Kimi K3.

GLM 5V Turbo is both cheaper ($0.0031 vs $0.011 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 12.7s per sample).

GLM 5V TurboKimi K3

GLM 5V Turbo vs Kimi K3 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026

PropertyGLM 5V TurboKimi K3
OrganizationZ.aiMoonshot AI
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Jul 2026
Context Window200K1.0M
Parameters2.8T
LicenseProprietaryModified MIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.20$3.00
Output $/1M$4.00$15.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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%
66.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0031$0.011
Avg speed / sample6.35s12.71s
By task
Object Detection
56.5%
$0.0052
51.9%
$0.020
Counting
48.6%
$0.0017
46.0%
$0.0046
Identification
84.4%
$0.0015
81.3%
$0.0041
OCR
89.3%
$0.0030
93.0%
$0.0094
Data Extraction
81.4%
$0.0018
84.5%
$0.0046
Reasoning (low)
31.8%
$0.0017
42.4%
$0.0044
Reasoning (high)
49.7%
$0.0069
74.2%
$0.037

GLM 5V Turbo vs Kimi K3: 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.

Kimi K3

Kimi K3 is a sparse Mixture-of-Experts large language model developed by Moonshot AI, with 2.8 trillion total parameters and a 1-million-token context window. The model activates 16 out of 896 experts per token using the Stable LatentMoE framework, and is built on two architectural innovations: Kimi Delta Attention (KDA), a hybrid linear attention mechanism that enables up to 6.3x faster decoding in long-context settings, and Attention Residuals (AttnRes), which selectively retrieves representations across model depth and delivers roughly 25% higher training efficiency. Together with refined training and data recipes, these structural advances yield approximately 2.5x better overall scaling efficiency compared to its predecessor Kimi K2. The model applies quantization-aware training from the supervised fine-tuning stage onward, using MXFP4 weights with MXFP8 activations for hardware compatibility. Thinking mode is always enabled at launch, with reasoning effort configurable via the reasoning_effort field.

Kimi K3 supports native visual understanding alongside text, accepting image inputs for tasks that combine software engineering and visual reasoning. It targets long-horizon coding, knowledge work, and agentic workflows, and ships in two variants: K3 Max for general chat and agent tasks, and K3 Swarm Max for large-scale parallel processing across many coordinated sub-agents. The model is compatible with the OpenAI SDK via an OpenAI-compatible API. Full model weights are scheduled for release by July 27, 2026 under a Modified MIT license, following the open-weight pattern established by the Kimi K2 model family. A technical report with full architecture, training, and evaluation details is expected to accompany the weights release.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Kimi K3 performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Kimi K3 averages 66.5% (#20 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, Kimi K3 leads with 42.4% 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 $0.011. GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output; Kimi K3 is priced at $3.00 per 1M input tokens and $15.00 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 12.7s. 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.