# Claude Opus 4.1 vs GLM-4.7-Flash

> Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 207× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-1-vs-glm-4-7-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 20

## Summary

- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 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 4.1 leads 62.6 to 47.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 77.3% for Claude Opus 4.1 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 4.1.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 38.4 |
| Rank | 136 | 175 |
| Context | 200K | 200K |
| Input $/M | $15 | $0.06 |
| Output $/M | $75 | $0.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.3 (#69)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1383 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.1: 34.8 (#38)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.1: 31.6 (#70)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1356 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.11 | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.1: 22.0 (#267)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 58.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1430 | 1354 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.1: 41.9 (#93)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 60.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | 9.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1357 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.1: 26.2 (#114)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.1: 52.1 (#90)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1331 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1403 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1332 |
| LMArena German | 1412 | 1336 |
| LMArena Korean | 1381 | 1284 |
| LMArena Russian | 1421 | 1333 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1351 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.1: 75.8 (#53)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1327 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#60)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1345 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.1: 62.6 (#70)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1351 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1342 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1125 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GLM-4.7-Flash?

Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 207× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 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 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 40.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 200K tokens.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and GLM-4.7-Flash share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.