Roboflow

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Compare GLM 5V Turbo and Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 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.
QwenQwen3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

Qwen3.8 Flash scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Qwen3.8 Flash leads 56.3% to 48.6%.

Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 54.6% (#47 of 61) against 59.7% (#33 of 61) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0037 per sample), while GLM 5V Turbo is faster (5.9s vs 7.3s per sample).

GLM 5V TurboQwen3.8 Flash

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 11, 2026

PropertyGLM 5V TurboQwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationZ.aiQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Aug 2026
Context Window200K1.0M
ParametersUnknown125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.20$0.150
Output $/1M$4.00$0.470
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
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%
59.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0037$0.0004
Avg speed / sample5.89s7.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
56.5%
$0.0052
59.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)–
67.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5
$0.0010
Counting (low)
48.6%
$0.0017
56.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5
$0.0002
Counting (high)–
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9
$0.0008
Identification (low)
84.4%
$0.0015
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0001
Identification (high)–
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0003
OCR (low)
51.5%
$0.0039
58.9%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
43.0%
Transcription
78.0%
Structured JSON
67.5%
Text localization
17.7%
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
83.0%
Structured JSON
73.2%
Text localization
29.4%
OCR (high)
56.0%
$0.0080
62.9%
$0.0008
by category
Single value
44.4%
Transcription
77.8%
Structured JSON
69.6%
Text localization
38.7%
Single value
51.3%
Transcription
87.3%
Structured JSON
79.3%
Text localization
37.4%
Reasoning (low)
31.8%
$0.0017
35.1%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
49.7%
$0.0069
69.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2
$0.0011

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.8 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.

Qwen3.8 Flash

Qwen3.8-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.

Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 59.7% (#33 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 Counting benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.8 Flash leads with 56.3% against 48.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0037. GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.47 per 1M output. 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 7.3s. 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.