Roboflow

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Compare GLM 5V Turbo and Qwen3.7 Flash 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 Qwen3.7 Flash 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.
QwenQwen3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GLM 5V Turbo leads 56.5% to 42.8%.

Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 65.3% (#25 of 33) against 61.7% (#30 of 33) for Qwen3.7 Flash.

Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0031 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 6.3s per sample).

GLM 5V TurboQwen3.7 Flash

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyGLM 5V TurboQwen3.7 Flash
OrganizationZ.aiQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Jul 2026
Context Window200K1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.20$0.030
Output $/1M$4.00$0.130
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%
61.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0031$0.0001
Avg speed / sample6.35s6.32s
By task
Object Detection
56.5%
$0.0052
42.8%
$0.0001
Counting
48.6%
$0.0017
46.0%
<$0.0001
Identification
84.4%
$0.0015
84.4%
<$0.0001
OCR
89.3%
$0.0030
84.1%
$0.0001
Data Extraction
81.4%
$0.0018
78.3%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (low)
31.8%
$0.0017
34.4%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
49.7%
$0.0069
60.9%
$0.0005

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.7 Flash: 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.

Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.

Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GLM 5V Turbo performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 65.3% (#25 of 33) against 61.7% (#30 of 33) for Qwen3.7 Flash. 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, GLM 5V Turbo leads with 56.5% against 42.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.0031. GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Flash is priced at $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.13 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s per inference against 6.3s. 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.