Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 44.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 36 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 36 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores higher in 2 categories and GLM-5.1 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.1 leads 49.7 to 32.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 37.3% for Claude Sonnet 4.5 and 77.7% for GLM-5.1.
- GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $3 / $15 for Claude Sonnet 4.5.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 44.1 | 47.8 |
| Released | 2025-09-29 | 2026-04-07 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 200K |
| Max output | 64K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $3 | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $15 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 73 | 41 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 47.3 (#61), GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 71.3% | 74.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1393 | 1508 |
| SciCode | 44.7% | 43.8% |
| WeirdML | 47.7% | 57.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1489 | 1485 |
| ALE-Bench | 796.15 | 887.1 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 71.4% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 67% | — |
| GSO | 14.7% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.52 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 38.3 (#32), GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,839 | 5,634 |
| Terminal-Bench | 46.5% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 40.9% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 73.2% | — |
| GDPval | 42.5% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 2.1% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 72% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 25.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 72.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 84.9% | — |
| Cybench | 60% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 52.6% | — |
| OSWorld | 62.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| LMArena Search | 1159 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 67.4% | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 26.9 (#125), GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 54.3% | 55.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 37.3% | 77.7% |
| CritPt | 1.1% | 4.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | 19% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1462 | 1472 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.84 | 149.84 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 13.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 63.7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 69.8% |
| EBR-Bench | 2.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 17% | — |
| DTBench | 83.2% | — |
| LMCA | 38.8% | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.9 | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 32.3 (#216), GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 23.9% | 36.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 77.8% | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | 19% | 22.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1449 | 1473 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 15.2% | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 12.5% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| Omni-MATH | 55.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 97.7% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 48.4 (#76), GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 82.3% | 89.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.7% | 34% |
| LMArena Expert | 1482 | 1476 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 13.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 68.6% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 34.8 (#89), GLM-5.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 39.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1450 | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 53.4 (#69), GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1447 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1459 | 1515 |
| LMArena French | 1458 | 1474 |
| LMArena German | 1427 | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1390 | 1434 |
| LMArena Korean | 1403 | 1418 |
| LMArena Russian | 1437 | 1454 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1457 | 1469 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 75.0 (#78), GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1459 | 1451 |
| IFEval | 85% | — |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 45.2 (#46), GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1476 | 1466 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 66.5 (#34), GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1439 | 1461 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1442 | 1453 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1678 | 1592 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1465 | 1472 |
| WildBench | 85.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 better than GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 44.1 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists at $3 and $15.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GLM-5.1 better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 47.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 200K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GLM-5.1 share?
36 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has 73 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.