Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 207× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4'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 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 leads 61.2 to 47.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 76.3% for Claude Opus 4 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.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | GLM-4.7-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 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 | 56 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 47.2 (#62), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1383 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42), GLM-4.7-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121), GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1356 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86), GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | 58.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1390 | 1355 |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 44.0 (#88), GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | 60.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | 9.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1357 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106), GLM-4.7-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | — |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138), GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1330 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1403 |
| LMArena French | 1372 | 1332 |
| LMArena German | 1391 | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | 1283 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1332 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1389 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1331 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28), GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1327 |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1345 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89), GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1351 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | 1297 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | 1125 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1342 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than GLM-4.7-Flash?
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 207× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4 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 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4 or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.2 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 200K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and GLM-4.7-Flash share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.