Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs GLM-5
GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 3 categories and GLM-5 in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5 leads 46.4 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Terminal-Bench: 38% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 52.4% for GLM-5.
- GLM-5 is cheaper at $1 / $3.20 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- GLM-5 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 46.1 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-02-11 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 205K |
| Max output | 32K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $1 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $3.20 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 45 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), GLM-5: 49.0 (#52)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | 72.1% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1434 |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 48.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1461 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 765.62 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 72.8% |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | — | 69.7% |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), GLM-5: 31.1 (#71)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | 52.4% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | — | 82.5% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 9.8% |
| τ²-bench Retail | — | 73.7% |
| τ²-bench Telecom | — | 86.8% |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,432 |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), GLM-5: 27.6 (#116)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 60% | 53.2% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 10% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1452 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 145.83 |
| ForecastBench | 62 | 61 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 4.9% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 75% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 44.7% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
Math GLM-5 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), GLM-5: 46.4 (#71)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 80% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1440 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 16.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 2.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 65.7% |
Knowledge GLM-5 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), GLM-5: 52.3 (#64)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 87.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | 10.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1454 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), GLM-5: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), GLM-5: 53.7 (#58)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1511 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1445 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1416 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1423 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1436 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1454 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), GLM-5: 75.2 (#67)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1428 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), GLM-5: 44.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1446 |
| CL-bench | — | 18.7% |
Writing & Preference GLM-5 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), GLM-5: 66.0 (#38)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1446 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1456 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1601 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GLM-5?
GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or GLM-5?
GLM-5 is cheaper. It lists at $1 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or GLM-5 better for coding?
GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 44.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5 does, with 205K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and GLM-5 share?
31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5 has 45.