Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM-4.7-Flash

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 55× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.6

Rank #3 Confirmed

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 8 categories and GLM-4.7-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 80.2 to 20.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5GLM-4.7-Flash
ProviderAnthropicZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index68.638.8
Released2026-09-222026-01-19
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M200K
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$4$0.06
Output $ / M tokens$20$0.40
Results tracked4421

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Coding15471383
FrontierCode54.6%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1813—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
MirrorCode77.4%—
ALE-Bench2,147—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), GLM-4.7-Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5GLM-4.7-Flash
APEX-Agents73.5%—
GDP.pdf30.6%—
Vending-Bench 29,235—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts15351356
ARC-AGI-293.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
Chess Puzzles—0%
EBR-Bench71.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—
DTBench98.9%—
LMCA68.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index167.33—

Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5GLM-4.7-Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%58.3%
LMArena Math15061355
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
ProofBench100%—
FrontierMath Erdős2.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5GLM-4.7-Flash
GPQA Diamond90.6%60.5%
LMArena Expert15471357
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—9.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), GLM-4.7-Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Vision1321—
Blueprint-Bench 251.2%—
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Non-English15071330
LMArena Chinese15881403
LMArena French15141332
LMArena Russian15201332
LMArena Spanish15071350
LMArena German—1337
LMArena Korean—1283

Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following15371327

Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Longer Query15321345

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Text15151351
LMArena Creative Writing15331297
EQ-Bench Creative Writing20501125
LMArena Multi-Turn14991342

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than GLM-4.7-Flash?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 55× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and GLM-4.7-Flash share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper