Model comparison
Claude 3 Opus vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 3 Opus scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.3-Flash in 10 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 53.3 to 14.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 4.7% for Claude 3 Opus and 93.9% for GLM-5.3-Flash.
- GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.3-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 29.5 | 51.8 |
| Released | 2024-02-29 | 2026-08-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 40 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude 3 Opus: 32.9 (#267), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#31)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1264 | 1508 |
| DeepSWE | — | 63.4% |
| FrontierCode | — | 31.8% |
| CursorBench | — | 36.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1609 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 18.1% |
| SciCode | — | 51.6% |
| WeirdML | 19.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.5% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 38.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 57.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 303.55 |
| HumanEval+ | 77.4% | — |
| MBPP+ | 73.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude 3 Opus: 24.6 (#116), GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 52.8% |
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 14% |
| METR Time Horizons | 29.5% | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude 3 Opus: 14.6 (#324), GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 5% | 14% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1245 | 1491 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 126.91 | 151.88 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 65.8% |
| SimpleBench | 23.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 91% |
| CritPt | — | 15.4% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.8% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 40.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 8% |
| DTBench | 61.6% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 57.9% | — |
| LMCA | 17% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 52.5% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.15 |
| ForecastBench | 58.4 | — |
| LiveBench | 49.2% | — |
| WinoGrande | 88.5% | — |
Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude 3 Opus: 14.8 (#299), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 4.7% | 93.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1273 | 1500 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 55.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 17.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 21% |
| LiveBench Math | 43.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 37.5% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude 3 Opus: 24.5 (#267), GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 47.2% | 90.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1223 | 1513 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 12.6% | — |
| Confabulations | 22.7% | — |
| MMLU | 84.6% | — |
Multimodal GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude 3 Opus: 27.1 (#116), GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1023 | 1296 |
Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude 3 Opus: 41.4 (#207), GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1258 | 1462 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1248 | 1527 |
| LMArena French | 1275 | 1496 |
| LMArena German | 1258 | 1470 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1204 | 1429 |
| LMArena Korean | 1187 | 1446 |
| LMArena Russian | 1280 | 1469 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1246 | 1471 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude 3 Opus: 64.1 (#228), GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1248 | 1478 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 63.9% | — |
Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude 3 Opus: 38.2 (#202), GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1259 | 1482 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude 3 Opus: 47.2 (#213), GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1262 | 1471 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1442 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1275 | 1467 |
| LiveBench Language | 50.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 3 Opus better than GLM-5.3-Flash?
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 3 Opus or GLM-5.3-Flash better for coding?
GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 32.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 3 Opus and GLM-5.3-Flash share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3 Opus has 46 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3-Flash has 40.