Roboflow

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.8 Max

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

Models in this comparison

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

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.5% to 31.8%.

Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 65.3% (#25 of 33) against 84.0% (#3 of 33) for Qwen3.8 Max.

GLM 5V Turbo is both cheaper ($0.0031 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 18.0s per sample).

GLM 5V TurboQwen3.8 Max

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table

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

PropertyGLM 5V TurboQwen3.8 Max
OrganizationZ.aiQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Aug 2026
Context Window200K984K
Parameters2.4T total, ~95B active
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.20$2.00
Output $/1M$4.00$6.00
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%
84.0%
Avg cost / sample$0.0031$0.0074
Avg speed / sample6.35s18.02s
By task
Object Detection
56.5%
$0.0052
77.1%
$0.013
Counting
48.6%
$0.0017
82.4%
$0.0046
Identification
84.4%
$0.0015
90.6%
$0.0027
OCR
89.3%
$0.0030
92.8%
$0.0056
Data Extraction
81.4%
$0.0018
87.6%
$0.0029
Reasoning (low)
31.8%
$0.0017
73.5%
$0.0047
Reasoning (high)
49.7%
$0.0069
80.8%
$0.011

GLM 5V Turbo vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.

For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Max performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 84.0% (#3 of 33) against 65.3% (#25 of 33) 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 Max leads with 73.5% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GLM 5V Turbo is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0031 per sample against $0.0074. GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Max is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 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 6.3s 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.