Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 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 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 39 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 39 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 10 categories and GLM-5.3-Flash in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5 leads 86.2 to 53.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 99% for Claude Opus 5 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 5.
- GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 51.8 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-08-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 40 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#31)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | 63.4% |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | 31.8% |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | 36.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | 1609 |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | 18.1% |
| SciCode | 56.4% | 51.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1508 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | 303.55 |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | 52.8% |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | 14% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | 65.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | 91% |
| CritPt | 29.1% | 15.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 14% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1491 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | 8% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | 0.15 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 151.88 |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| DTBench | 97.9% | — |
| LMCA | 64.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 52.5% |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | 55.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 93.9% |
| ProofBench | 99% | 21% |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1500 |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 90.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1513 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | — |
Multimodal Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | 1296 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1462 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1527 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1496 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | 1470 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | 1429 |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | 1446 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1469 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1471 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1478 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1482 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1471 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1442 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1467 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than GLM-5.3-Flash?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 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 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 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 5 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 5 or GLM-5.3-Flash better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 53.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and GLM-5.3-Flash share?
39 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3-Flash has 40.