# Claude Opus 4.1 vs GLM-5.1

> GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-1-vs-glm-5-1
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 29

## Summary

- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 1 category and GLM-5.1 in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.1 leads 49.0 to 22.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 68.9% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 93.3% for GLM-5.1.
- GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 47.6 |
| Rank | 136 | 51 |
| Context | 200K | 200K |
| Input $/M | $15 | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | $75 | $4.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.3 (#69)
- GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | 74.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1509 |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 57.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1486 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 887.1 |
| SciCode | — | 43.8% |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.1: 34.8 (#38)
- GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 40.9% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,634 |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.1: 31.6 (#70)
- GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 60% | 55.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 19% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1472 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.11 | 149.86 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 77.7% |
| CritPt | — | 4.6% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 69.8% |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.1: 22.0 (#267)
- GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 36.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1430 | 1472 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 12.5% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 22.2% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.1: 41.9 (#93)
- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 89.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1477 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.1: 26.2 (#114)
- GLM-5.1: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.1: 52.1 (#90)
- GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1448 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1516 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1478 |
| LMArena German | 1412 | 1466 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1436 |
| LMArena Korean | 1381 | 1423 |
| LMArena Russian | 1421 | 1453 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1467 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.1: 75.8 (#53)
- GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1451 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#60)
- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1467 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.1: 62.6 (#70)
- GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1462 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1454 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1473 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1592 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.

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

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 or GLM-5.1 better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 44.3 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-5.1 share?

29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.