GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5 9b
Compare GLM 5V Turbo and Qwen3.5 9b side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5 9b 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 9b on Vision Evals
GLM 5V Turbo scores higher on 2 of the 4 Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GLM 5V Turbo leads 56.5% to 38.1%.
Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 54.6% (#47 of 61) against 56.0% (#40 of 61) for Qwen3.5 9b.
Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper ($0.0021 vs $0.0037 per sample), while GLM 5V Turbo is faster (5.9s vs 41.4s per sample).
GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5 9b Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 9, 2026
| Property | GLM 5V Turbo | Qwen3.5 9b |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 262K |
| Parameters | Unknown | 9B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.20 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | $4.00 | $0.150 |
| 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% | 56.0% 4/5 tasks |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0037 | $0.0021 |
| Avg speed / sample | 5.89s | 41.36s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 56.5% | 38.1% ±5.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 33.5 to 44.9 |
| Counting | 48.6% | 56.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1 |
| Identification | 84.4% | 83.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 |
| OCR (low) | 51.5% | – |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | 56.0% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 31.8% | 45.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 44.4 to 47.7 |
| Reasoning (high) | 49.7% | – |
GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.5 9b: 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.
Qwen3.5-9B is a 9-billion-parameter multimodal foundation model developed by Alibaba Cloud's Qwen team, released on March 2, 2026 as part of the Qwen3.5 model family. Designed for efficient multimodal reasoning and long-context language tasks, it notably outperforms the older Qwen3-30B, a model more than three times its size, on key benchmarks including GPQA Diamond, IFEval, and LongBench.
The model supports vision-language inputs through an early-fusion multimodal architecture built on a dense hybrid foundation of Gated Delta Networks and Gated Attention. It can also operate in a text-only mode by skipping the vision encoder during inference. It provides a 262,144-token context window (extensible to ~1M tokens via YaRN) and is released under the Apache License 2.0. Within the current AI landscape, Qwen3.5-9B offers a strong balance of capability and efficiency, making it well-suited for multimodal assistants, document analysis, long-context reasoning, and developer-deployed agentic systems.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.5 9b performed slightly better overall. The two split the 4 vision tasks 2 to 2, but Qwen3.5 9b averages 56.0% (#40 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.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GLM 5V Turbo leads with 56.5% against 38.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0021 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 41.4s. 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.