Model comparison
Claude 3 Opus vs GLM-5.2
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 3 Opus scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.2 leads 55.7 to 14.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 4.7% for Claude 3 Opus and 86.4% for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 29.5 | 51.1 |
| Released | 2024-02-29 | 2026-06-13 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 51 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.2 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 32.9 (#267), GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 19.2% | 70.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1264 | 1485 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.7% |
| DeepSWE | — | 43.8% |
| FrontierCode | — | 24.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1603 |
| SciCode | — | 50.5% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.5% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 38.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 57.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,047 |
| HumanEval+ | 77.4% | — |
| MBPP+ | 73.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.2 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 24.6 (#116), GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 45.2% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 37.1% |
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| PostTrainBench | — | 31.7% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| METR Time Horizons | 29.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 8,314 |
Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 14.6 (#324), GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 23.5% | 58.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | 5% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1245 | 1480 |
| DTBench | 61.6% | 93.6% |
| LMCA | 17% | 45.8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 126.91 | 151.78 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 22.8% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 62.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 77% |
| CritPt | — | 20.9% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 40.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 57.9% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 55.6% |
| ForecastBench | 58.4 | — |
| LiveBench | 49.2% | — |
| WinoGrande | 88.5% | — |
Math GLM-5.2 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 14.8 (#299), GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 4.7% | 86.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1273 | 1482 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 59.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 29.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.6% |
| ProofBench | — | 35% |
| LiveBench Math | 43.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 37.5% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 24.5 (#267), GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 47.2% | 91.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 12.6% | 34.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1223 | 1486 |
| Confabulations | 22.7% | — |
| MMLU | 84.6% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude 3 Opus: 27.1 (#116), GLM-5.2: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1023 | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 41.4 (#207), GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1258 | 1459 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1248 | 1519 |
| LMArena French | 1275 | 1479 |
| LMArena German | 1258 | 1468 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1204 | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | 1187 | 1445 |
| LMArena Russian | 1280 | 1466 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1246 | 1477 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 64.1 (#228), GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1248 | 1465 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 63.9% | — |
Long Context GLM-5.2 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 38.2 (#202), GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1259 | 1479 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 47.2 (#213), GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1262 | 1470 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1462 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1275 | 1469 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1757 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | 50.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 3 Opus better than GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 3 Opus or GLM-5.2 better for coding?
GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 32.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 3 Opus and GLM-5.2 share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3 Opus has 46 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.