Roboflow

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5-27B

Compare GLM 5V Turbo and Qwen3.5-27B 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 Qwen3.5-27B 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.
QwenQwen3.5-27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5-27B on Vision Evals

GLM 5V Turbo scores higher on 2 of the 4 Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Qwen3.5-27B leads 58.1% to 31.8%.

Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 54.6% (#47 of 61) against 64.1% (#28 of 61) for Qwen3.5-27B.

GLM 5V Turbo is both cheaper ($0.0037 vs $0.0043 per sample) and faster (5.9s vs 80.4s per sample).

GLM 5V TurboQwen3.5-27B

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5-27B Comparison Table

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

PropertyGLM 5V TurboQwen3.5-27B
OrganizationZ.aiQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Feb 2026
Context Window200K262K
ParametersUnknown27B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.20$0.260
Output $/1M$4.00$2.60
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 VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
54.6%
64.1%
4/5 tasks
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1664.1%FP860.9%AWQ-INT461.2%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0037$0.0043
Avg speed / sample5.89s80.37s
By task
Object Detection
56.5%
$0.0052
50.5%
±3.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.1 to 53.0
$0
Counting
48.6%
$0.0017
67.6%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 68.9
$0
Identification
84.4%
$0.0015
80.2%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 84.4
$0
OCR (low)
51.5%
$0.0039
–
by category
Single value
43.0%
Transcription
78.0%
Structured JSON
67.5%
Text localization
17.7%
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
58.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 60.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
49.7%
$0.0069
–

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5-27B: 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.

Qwen3.5-27B

Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.

Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.5-27B performed slightly better overall. The two split the 4 vision tasks 2 to 2, but Qwen3.5-27B averages 64.1% (#28 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, Qwen3.5-27B leads with 58.1% 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 $0.0043. 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 80.4s. 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.