Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.1 vs GLM-5.2

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic

41.0

Rank #142 Confirmed

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 1 category and GLM-5.2 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.2 leads 55.7 to 22.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 12.6% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 59.2% for GLM-5.2.
  • GLM-5.2 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
  • GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
  • GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.1GLM-5.2
ProviderAnthropicZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index41.051.1
Released2025-08-052026-06-13
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K1M
Max output32K131K
Input $ / M tokens$15$1.40
Output $ / M tokens$75$4.40
Results tracked4851

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.2 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GLM-5.2
SWE-bench Verified73.3%78.7%
LMArena WebDev13901603
WeirdML45.9%70.1%
LMArena Coding14791485
ALE-Bench674.771,047
DeepSWE—43.8%
FrontierCode—24.5%
SciCode—50.5%
AlgoTune1.34—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GLM-5.2
Terminal-Bench38%—
APEX-Agents—45.2%
GDPval43.6%—
τ²-bench Banking—37.1%
Cybench42%—
DeepResearch Bench48.3%—
PostTrainBench—31.7%
GBAEval—0%
LMArena Search1148—
METR Time Horizons66.8%—
Vending-Bench 2—8,314

Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GLM-5.2
SimpleBench60%58.8%
Chess Puzzles7%21%
EBR-Bench7.9%9.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14431480
Mystery Game Puzzles21%19%
DTBench80%93.6%
LMCA37.1%45.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index144.12151.78
ARC-AGI-2—22.8%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—62.6%
NYT Connections (extended)—74.3%
ARC-AGI-1—77%
CritPt—20.9%
EnigmaEval7.2%—
Surface Evolver Bench—55.6%
ForecastBench62—

Math GLM-5.2 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GLM-5.2
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)12.6%59.2%
FrontierMath Tier 42.4%29.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202568.9%86.4%
LMArena Math14311482
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—67.6%
ProofBench—35%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)7.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GLM-5.2
GPQA Diamond77.3%91.9%
LMArena Expert14391486
Humanity's Last Exam11.5%—
SimpleQA Verified—34.2%
Confabulations17.1%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.8%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), GLM-5.2: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GLM-5.2
VPCT35%—

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GLM-5.2
LMArena Non-English14051459
LMArena Chinese14271519
LMArena French14311479
LMArena German14131468
LMArena Japanese13781451
LMArena Korean13801445
LMArena Russian14221466
LMArena Spanish14481477

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GLM-5.2
LMArena Instruction Following14351465

Long Context Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GLM-5.2
LMArena Longer Query14551479

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GLM-5.2
LMArena Text14191470
LMArena Creative Writing14121462
LMArena Multi-Turn14441469
Short-Story Creative Writing84.7%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1757
EQ-Bench 4—1222

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 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-5.2 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 44.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.2 does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and GLM-5.2 share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.

Related comparisons

Go deeper