Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 1 category and GLM-5.1 in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.1 leads 49.7 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 68.9% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 93.3% for GLM-5.1.
- GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 47.8 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-04-07 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 200K |
| Max output | 32K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 41 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | 74.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1508 |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 57.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1485 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 887.1 |
| SciCode | — | 43.8% |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 40.9% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,634 |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 60% | 55.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 19% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1472 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 149.84 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 77.7% |
| CritPt | — | 4.6% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 69.8% |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 36.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1473 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 12.5% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 22.2% |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 89.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1476 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), GLM-5.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1447 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1515 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1474 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1434 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1418 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1454 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1469 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1451 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1466 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1461 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1453 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1472 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1592 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or GLM-5.1 better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 44.4 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-5.1 share?
29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.