Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 51.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5.3-Flash costs 42× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 9 categories and GLM-5.3-Flash in 1 category; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 51.1 to 34.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 50% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 21% for GLM-5.3-Flash.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3-Flash
ProviderAnthropicZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index58.251.8
Released2026-02-042026-08-20
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M1M
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.50
Results tracked6840

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#31)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3-Flash
FrontierCode26.6%31.8%
LMArena WebDev15471609
LMArena Coding15361508
ALE-Bench996.5303.55
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
DeepSWE—63.4%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
CursorBench—36.8%
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
FrontierSWE—18.1%
SciCode—51.6%
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3-Flash
APEX-Agents46.3%52.8%
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
GDP.pdf—14%
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3-Flash
ARC-AGI-269.2%65.8%
ARC-AGI-194%91%
Chess Puzzles17%14%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271491
Mystery Game Puzzles25%8%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24151.88
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
CritPt—15.4%
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
DTBench91.2%—
LMCA55.8%—
Surface Evolver Bench—52.5%
Bench to the Future 3—0.15
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3-Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%55.8%
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%17.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%93.9%
ProofBench50%21%
LMArena Math15191500
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3-Flash
GPQA Diamond90.5%90.2%
LMArena Expert15461513
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—

Multimodal GLM-5.3-Flash leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Vision13161296
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Non-English14891462
LMArena Chinese15511527
LMArena French15131496
LMArena German15021470
LMArena Japanese14841429
LMArena Korean14641446
LMArena Russian14971469
LMArena Spanish15101471

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following15231478

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Longer Query15201482
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Text15031471
LMArena Creative Writing15051442
LMArena Multi-Turn15131467
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than GLM-5.3-Flash?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 51.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5.3-Flash costs 42× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM-5.3-Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 53.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM-5.3-Flash share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3-Flash has 40.

Related comparisons

Go deeper