Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 207× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 7 categories and GLM-4.7-Flash in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4.1 leads 62.6 to 47.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 77.3% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 60.5% for GLM-4.7-Flash.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 38.4 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-01-19 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 200K |
| Max output | 32K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.06 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.3 (#69), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1383 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 34.8 (#38), GLM-4.7-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 31.6 (#70), GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1356 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.11 | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.0 (#267), GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 58.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1430 | 1354 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 41.9 (#93), GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 60.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | 9.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1357 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.2 (#114), GLM-4.7-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.1 (#90), GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1331 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1403 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1332 |
| LMArena German | 1412 | 1336 |
| LMArena Korean | 1381 | 1284 |
| LMArena Russian | 1421 | 1333 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1351 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.8 (#53), GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1327 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#60), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1345 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.6 (#70), GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1351 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1342 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1125 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GLM-4.7-Flash?
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 207× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or GLM-4.7-Flash?
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 40.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 200K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and GLM-4.7-Flash share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.