Roboflow

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B

Compare GLM 5V Turbo and Qwen3.5 35B A3B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.

Compare GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B live

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

Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.

Open OCR in the full playground
Z.aiGLM 5V Turbo
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5 35B A3B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Qwen3.5 35B A3B leads 54.1% to 31.8%.

Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 54.6% (#47 of 61) against 62.5% (#30 of 61) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B.

Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper ($0.0016 vs $0.0037 per sample), while GLM 5V Turbo is faster (5.9s vs 31.9s per sample).

GLM 5V TurboQwen3.5 35B A3B

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B Comparison Table

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

PropertyGLM 5V TurboQwen3.5 35B A3B
OrganizationZ.aiQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Feb 2026
Context Window200K262K
ParametersUnknown35B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.20$0.080
Output $/1M$4.00$0.750
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoSupported
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoSupported
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%
62.5%
4/5 tasks
Quantizationsself-hosted
FP859.8%GPTQ-INT462.5%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0037$0.0016
Avg speed / sample5.89s31.88s
By task
Object Detection
56.5%
$0.0052
52.9%
±3.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.5 to 55.9
$0
Counting
48.6%
$0.0017
62.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9
$0
Identification
84.4%
$0.0015
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$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
54.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 53.6 to 54.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
49.7%
$0.0069
–

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B: 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 35B A3B

The Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is a native vision-language model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team, released on February 24, 2026, as a high-efficiency entry in the Qwen 3.5 family. It utilizes a sophisticated hybrid architecture that integrates Gated Delta Networks with a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system. While the model houses 35 billion total parameters, its routing mechanism activates only 8 routed experts and 1 shared expert per token, totaling approximately 3 billion active parameters. This design achieves cross-generational parity with the previous flagship Qwen3-235B dense model, delivering comparable reasoning and multimodal intelligence with significantly reduced inference latency and compute requirements. Available under the Apache 2.0 license, it is released in both base and instruction-tuned variants for seamless integration with open-source stacks like vLLM and Hugging Face Transformers.

Designed for the emerging era of agentic AI, the model utilizes a unified multimodal foundation built through early-fusion training. This approach allows it to outperform the prior Qwen3-VL series in spatial grounding, document analysis, and UI/GUI interaction. It features a native context window of 262,144 tokens, which is extensible up to 1,010,000 tokensvia RoPE scaling, and provides global support for 201 languages and dialects. This combination of a compact active parameter count and frontier-level visual comprehension makes it a versatile tool for developers requiring a balance of high-throughput speed and sophisticated visual reasoning for long-context workflows.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.5 35B A3B performed slightly better overall. The two split the 4 vision tasks 2 to 2, but Qwen3.5 35B A3B averages 62.5% (#30 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 35B A3B leads with 54.1% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0016 per sample against $0.0037. 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 31.9s. 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.