GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare GLM 5V Turbo and Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 62.0% to 31.8%.
Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 54.6% (#47 of 61) against 69.5% (#21 of 61) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.0037 per sample), while GLM 5V Turbo is faster (5.9s vs 18.0s per sample).
GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 10, 2026
| Property | GLM 5V Turbo | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 262K |
| Parameters | Unknown | 27.78B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.20 | $0.425 |
| Output $/1M | $4.00 | $2.55 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| 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% | 69.5% 4/5 tasks |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0037 | $0.0009 |
| Avg speed / sample | 5.89s | 17.99s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 56.5% | 65.7% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 66.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8 |
| Counting (low) | 48.6% | 64.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9 |
| Counting (high) | – | 68.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3 |
| Identification (low) | 84.4% | 85.4% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 51.5% | – |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | 56.0% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 31.8% | 62.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 49.7% | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9 |
GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.8 27B: 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.
Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.
Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 27B performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 69.5% (#21 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, Qwen3.8 27B leads with 62.0% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 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 18.0s. 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.