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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
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 Turbo vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 10, 2026
| Property | GLM 5V Turbo | Qwen3.5 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 262K |
| Parameters | Unknown | 35B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.20 | $0.080 |
| Output $/1M | $4.00 | $0.750 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 54.6% | 62.5% 4/5 tasks |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0037 | $0.0016 |
| Avg speed / sample | 5.89s | 31.88s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 56.5% | 52.9% ±3.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.5 to 55.9 |
| Counting | 48.6% | 62.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9 |
| Identification | 84.4% | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 51.5% | – |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | 56.0% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 31.8% | 54.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 53.6 to 54.3 |
| Reasoning (high) | 49.7% | – |
GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B: 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.
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.