The two big stories of AI so far in 2026 are the incredible growth in use and appreciation of Anthropic’s Cloud Code and the similarly huge increase in adoption by users for Google’s Gemini 3 AI model family released late last year – the latter of which includes Nano Banana Pro (also known as Gemini 3 Pro Image), a powerful, fast and flexible image creation model that quickly and accurately renders complex, text-heavy infographics. , making it an excellent fit for enterprise use (think: collateral, training, onboarding, stationery, etc.).
But of course, both of these are proprietary offerings. And yet, open source rivals have not been far behind.
This week, we found a new open source alternative to Nano Banana Pro in the category of accurate, text-heavy image generators: GLM-Image, a new 16-billion parameter open-source model from recently public Chinese startup Z.ai.
bypassing the industry standard "net spread" The architecture that powers most leading image generator models favors a hybrid auto-regressive (AR) + diffusion design, GLM-Image has achieved what was previously considered the domain of closed, proprietary models: state-of-the-art performance in generating text-heavy, information-dense visuals such as infographics, slides and technical diagrams.
It also outperforms Google’s Nano Banana Pro, shared by z.ai – although in practice, my own quick use found it to be much less accurate in following instructions and rendering text (and other users seem to agree).
But for enterprises seeking a cost-effective and customizable, custom-licensed alternative to proprietary AI models, z.ai’s GLM-Image may be "is enough" Or some will take over as the primary image generator depending on their specific use cases, needs and requirements.
Benchmark: Beating the Proprietary Giant
The most compelling argument for GLM-Image is not its aesthetics, but its accuracy. In the CVTG-2k (Complex Visual Text Generation) benchmark, which evaluates the model’s ability to accurately render text in multiple areas of an image, GLM-Image scored a word accuracy average of 0.9116.
To put that number in perspective, Nano Banana 2.0 aka Pro—often cited as the benchmark for enterprise reliability—score 0.7788. This is no small advantage; This is a generational leap in semantic control.
While Nano Banana Pro retains a slight edge in single-stream English long-text generation (0.9808 vs. GLM-Image’s 0.9524), it falters substantially as complexity increases.
As the number of text regions increases, Nano Banana’s accuracy remains in the 70s, while GLM-Image maintains over 90% accuracy even with many different text elements.
For enterprise use cases – where a marketing slide needs a title, three bullet points, and a caption all together – this reliability is the difference between a production-ready asset and a hallucination.
Unfortunately, my own use of demo estimation of GLM-images on hugging faces proved to be less reliable than the benchmark.
my prompt to generate one "Infographic labeling all the major constellations visible from the US Northern Hemisphere on January 14, 2026 and placing faded images of their names behind star connection line diagrams" Didn’t get the results I asked for, instead maybe 20% or less of the specified content was completed.
But Google’s Nano Banana Pro handled it like a champ, as you’ll see below:
Of course, a large part of this is no doubt due to the fact that Nano Banana Pro is integrated with Google Search, so it can look up information on the web in response to my prompt, whereas GLM-Image cannot, and therefore, requires far more specific instructions about the actual text and other content to be included in the image.
But still, once you’re able to type in a few simple instructions and get a thoroughly researched and well-crafted image through the latter, it’s hard to imagine deploying a lower level alternative, unless you have very specific requirements regarding cost, data residency and security – or your organization’s adaptability is very good.
Ahead, Nano Banana Pro is still ahead of GLM-Image in terms of pure aesthetics – Using OneIG benchmark, nano banana 2.0 is at 0.578 while glm-image is at 0.528 – And indeed, as the top header artwork of this article indicates, GLM-Image does not always produce an image as clear, finely detailed, and pleasing as Google’s generator.
Architectural change: why "hybrid" Matters
Why does GLM-Image succeed where pure diffusion models fail? The answer lies in Z.ai’s decision to treat image generation as a logic problem first and a painting problem second.
Standard latent diffusion models (such as static diffusion or flux) attempt to handle global structure and fine texture simultaneously.
it is often "semantic flow," Where the model forgets specific instructions (e.g. "place text top left") because it focuses on making pixels look realistic.
GLM-Image divides these objectives into two distinct "Brain" Total 16 billion parameters:
- Auto-Regressive Generator (The "architect"): Based on Z.ai’s GLM-4-9B language model, it logically processes 9-billion parameter module prompts. It does not generate pixels; Instead, it outputs "visual token"-Especially semantic-VQ tokens. These tokens act as compressed blueprints of the image, locking in layout, text placement, and object relationships before a single pixel is drawn. It takes advantage of the reasoning power of LLM, allowing the model to "Understand" Complex instructions (eg, "A four-panel tutorial") in a way propagation noise predictors cannot.
-
Diffusion decoder (the "painter"): Once the layout is locked by the AR module, the 7 billion parameter Diffusion Transformer (DiT) decoder takes over. Based on the CogView4 architecture, this module fills in high-frequency details—texture, lighting, and style.
by separating "What" (ar) to "How" (diffusion), GLM-image solves "deep knowledge" crisis. The AR module ensures that the text is written correctly and placed accurately, while the Diffusion module ensures that the end result looks photorealistic.
Training of Hybrids: A Multi-Step Development
The secret to GLM-image performance is not just architecture; It is a highly specialized, multi-level training course that forces the model to learn the structure before expanding.
The training process started by freezing the text word embedding layer of the original GLM-4 model during training on a new "sight word embedding" layer and a special sight LM head.
This allowed the model to project visual tokens into the same semantic space as the text, allowing LLM to be taught effectively. "Speak" In images. Importantly, Z.ai implemented MRoPE (Multidimensional Rotary Positional Embedding) to handle the complex interleaving of text and images required for mixed-modal generation.
The model was then subjected to a progressive solution strategy:
- Step 1 (256px): The model was trained on low-resolution, 256-token sequences using a simple raster scan order.
-
Stage 2 (512px – 1024px): As the resolution increased in the composite stage (512px to 1024px), the team noticed a drop in controllability. To fix this, they abandoned simple scanning for a progressive generation strategy.
In this advanced stage, the model first generates about 256 "layout token" From a down-sampled version of the target image.
These tokens act as a structural anchor. By increasing the training load on these initial tokens, the team forced the model to prioritize the global layout – where things are – before generating high-resolution details. This is why glm-image is excellent in posters and diagrams: it "sketch" First layout, making sure the composition is mathematically correct before rendering the pixels.
Licensing analysis: A permissive, if slightly vague, win for the enterprise
For enterprise CTOs and legal teams, GLM-Image’s licensing structure is a significant competitive advantage over proprietary APIs, although it does come with a slight caveat regarding documentation.
Ambiguity: There is some inconsistency in the release content. The model’s Hugging Face repository clearly tags the weights with the MIT license.
However, the attached GitHub repository and documentation reference the Apache License 2.0.
Why it’s still good news: Despite the mismatch, both licenses are "gold standard" For enterprise-friendly open source.
- Commercial Viability: Both MIT and Apache 2.0 allow unrestricted commercial use, modification, and distribution. Against of "open rail" Other image models include general licenses (which often restrict specific use cases) or "research only" license (like early LLAMA releases), glm-image is effectively "open for business" Immediately.
-
Apache Benefits (if applicable): If the code falls under Apache 2.0, it is especially beneficial for larger organizations. Apache 2.0 includes an explicit patent grant clause, meaning that by contributing or using the software, contributors grant a patent license to users. This reduces the risk of future patent litigation – a major concern for enterprises building products on top of open-source codebases.
-
No "Infection": : nor is there a license "copyleft" (like GPL). You can integrate GLM-Images into a proprietary workflow or product without being forced to open-source your own intellectual property.
For developers, the recommendation is simple: treat the weights as MIT (according to the repository hosting them) and the inference code as Apache 2.0. Both paths clear the runway for building commercial products without internal hosting, fine-tuning on sensitive data, and vendor lock-in contracts.
"why now" for enterprise operations
For the enterprise decision maker, GLM-Image has reached a critical inflection point. Companies are moving beyond using generative AI for abstract blog headers and moving into the functional realm: multilingual localization of ads, automated UI mockup generation, and dynamic educational content.
In these workflows, a 5% error rate in text rendering is a bottleneck. If a model creates a beautiful slide but misspells the product name, the asset is worthless. Benchmarks suggest that GLM-Image is the first open-source model to exceed the reliability threshold for these complex tasks.
Furthermore, permissive licensing fundamentally changes the economics of deployment. Whereas Nano Banana Pro locks enterprises into per-call API cost structures or restrictive cloud contracts, GLM-Images can be self-hosted, fine-tuned on proprietary brand assets, and integrated into secure, air-gapped pipelines without data leakage concerns.
The catch: heavy compute requirements
The tradeoff for this reasoning capability is computation intensity. The dual model architecture is heavy. Generating a single 2048×2048 image requires approximately 252 seconds on an H100 GPU. This is significantly slower than highly optimized, small diffusion models.
However, for high-value assets – where the alternative is a human designer spending hours in Photoshop – this latency is acceptable.
Z.ai also offers a managed API at $0.015 per image, providing a bridge for teams who want to test capabilities without immediately investing in an H100 cluster.
GLM-Image is a sign that the open-source community is no longer just fast-following proprietary labs; In specialized, high-value verticals such as knowledge-intensive generation, they are now setting the pace. For the enterprise, the message is clear: If your operational bottleneck is the reliability of complex visual content, the solution is no longer a closed Google product – it can be an open-source model you can run yourself.
<a href