GLM OCR vs GLM 5.3 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare |  GLM OCRZ.ai | GLM 5.3 FlashZ.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v4.4 | UnrankedNot in the 57-model eligible cohort | #20 of 5756.2 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 37.5–70.8 |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 27-model eligible cohort | #2 of 27$0.0087 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.9 | UnrankedNot in the 27-model eligible cohort | #2 of 2765.8 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 56.4–73.1 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.075Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.25Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 2, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | GLM-OCR | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Z.ai | Z.ai |
| Family | Glm OCR | Glm 5 3 Flash |
| Model | GLM-OCR | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Version | GLM-OCR | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 1.3B | 320B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 18B |
| License | mit | MIT |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Together Ai (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Together Ai (Standard), Z.ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, tools | agents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
GLM OCR Capabilities
GLM 5.3 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
 MolmoWeb 4BAi2 | vs | GLM-OCRZ.ai | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PTBaidu | vs | GLM-OCRZ.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
| vs | GLM-OCRZ.ai | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
 Ministral-3-3B-Base-2512Mistral AI | vs | GLM-OCRZ.ai | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Ministral-3-3B-Instruct-2512Mistral AI | vs | GLM-OCRZ.ai | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 GPT-4oOpenAI | vs | GLM-OCRZ.ai | cross-developer peersimage, text |
GPT-4o MiniOpenAI | vs | GLM-OCRZ.ai | cross-developer peersimage, text |
PaddleOCR-VL-1.5Baidu | vs | GLM-OCRZ.ai | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 PII-TracerPerplexity | vs | GLM-OCRZ.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
GLM-5Z.ai | vs | GLM-OCRZ.ai | family variantstext |
GLM-OCRZ.ai | vs | GLM-5V-TurboZ.ai | family variantsimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
GLM OCR vs GLM 5.3 Flash FAQs
Is GLM OCR or GLM 5.3 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both GLM OCR and GLM 5.3 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, GLM OCR or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Only GLM 5.3 Flash has a directly sourced input price: $0.075 per million tokens. Only GLM 5.3 Flash has a directly sourced output price: $0.25 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, GLM OCR or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger sourced context window. GLM OCR supports 131,072 tokens and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 1,000,000 tokens.
Which performs better in benchmarks, GLM OCR or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can GLM OCR or GLM 5.3 Flash be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: supported. GLM OCR is open weight; GLM 5.3 Flash is open weight.
Can GLM OCR and GLM 5.3 Flash understand images?+
GLM OCR is documented with image input; GLM 5.3 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, GLM OCR or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM 5.3 Flash has a sourced maximum output of 131,072 tokens; GLM OCR's maximum output is not reported. A larger limit cannot be determined.
Do GLM OCR and GLM 5.3 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
GLM OCR: tool calling and image input. GLM 5.3 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, GLM OCR or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM OCR has 1 sourced provider route; GLM 5.3 Flash has 4, so GLM 5.3 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, GLM OCR or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.