# Claude Opus 4.1 vs GLM-5.3

> GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-1-vs-glm-5-3
- 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 0 categories and GLM-5.3 in 9 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.3 leads 62.1 to 22.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 12.6% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 68.8% for GLM-5.3.
- GLM-5.3 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- GLM-5.3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5.3 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 54.6 |
| Rank | 136 | 25 |
| Context | 200K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $15 | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | $75 | $4.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.3 (#69)
- GLM-5.3: 59.0 (#12)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1623 |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 75.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1499 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 1,317 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | — | 69% |
| FrontierCode | — | 40.1% |
| FrontierSWE | — | 30.2% |
| SciCode | — | 59% |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.1: 34.8 (#38)
- GLM-5.3: 36.3 (#34)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 56.6% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 8,164 |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.1: 31.6 (#70)
- GLM-5.3: 45.2 (#42)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1491 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 33% |
| DTBench | 80% | 87.7% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 55.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.11 | 155.56 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.2% |
| CritPt | — | 19.1% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.15 |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.1: 22.0 (#267)
- GLM-5.3: 62.1 (#27)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 68.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 29.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1430 | 1493 |
| ProofBench | — | 49% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.1: 41.9 (#93)
- GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#34)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 90.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1512 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 41% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.1: 26.2 (#114)
- GLM-5.3: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.1: 52.1 (#90)
- GLM-5.3: 55.9 (#27)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1457 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1523 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1499 |
| LMArena German | 1412 | 1505 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1438 |
| LMArena Korean | 1381 | 1478 |
| LMArena Russian | 1421 | 1460 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1444 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.1: 75.8 (#53)
- GLM-5.3: 77.8 (#15)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1481 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#60)
- GLM-5.3: 45.5 (#32)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1485 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.1: 62.6 (#70)
- GLM-5.3: 75.9 (#6)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1473 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1459 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1473 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 2075 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GLM-5.3?

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or GLM-5.3?

GLM-5.3 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-5.3 better for coding?

GLM-5.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.0 versus 44.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3 does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and GLM-5.3 share?

29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3 has 41.