# Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM-5

> Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 45.9 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5 costs 5.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-5-5-vs-glm-5
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 18

## Summary

- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 9 categories and GLM-5 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 79.5 to 27.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 92.5% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 4.9% for GLM-5.
- GLM-5 is cheaper at $1 / $3.20 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
- GLM-5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 68.5 | 45.9 |
| Rank | 3 | 59 |
| Context | 1M | 205K |
| Input $/M | $4 | $1 |
| Output $/M | $20 | $3.20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5.5: 71.4 (#1)
- GLM-5: 49.0 (#47)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1820 | 1434 |
| LMArena Coding | 1545 | 1461 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 72.1% |
| FrontierCode | 54.4% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 72.8% |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | — | 69.7% |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| SciCode | 66.9% | — |
| WeirdML | — | 48.2% |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 765.62 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#13)
- GLM-5: 30.9 (#65)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 52.4% |
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | — | 82.5% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 9.8% |
| τ²-bench Retail | — | 73.7% |
| τ²-bench Telecom | — | 86.8% |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,432 |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 5.5: 79.5 (#2)
- GLM-5: 27.6 (#100)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | 4.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | 74.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | 44.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1545 | 1451 |
| SimpleBench | — | 53.2% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 75% |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 10% |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| DTBench | 98.9% | — |
| LMCA | 68.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 145.84 |
| ForecastBench | — | 61 |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5.5: 92.4 (#2)
- GLM-5: 44.8 (#66)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 80% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 65.7% |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1440 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 16.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5.5: 66.6 (#9)
- GLM-5: 52.2 (#59)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | 87.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1564 | 1454 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.1% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5.5: 56.5 (#2)
- GLM-5: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5.5: 59.8 (#1)
- GLM-5: 53.9 (#57)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1513 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1572 | 1511 |
| LMArena Russian | 1532 | 1436 |
| LMArena French | — | 1455 |
| LMArena German | — | 1445 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1416 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1421 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1452 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5.5: 80.1 (#2)
- GLM-5: 75.4 (#64)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1535 | 1427 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5.5: 47.3 (#18)
- GLM-5: 44.6 (#58)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1540 | 1446 |
| CL-bench | — | 18.7% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5.5: 78.7 (#3)
- GLM-5: 66.2 (#38)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1518 | 1446 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1538 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | 1601 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1520 | 1456 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than GLM-5?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 45.9 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5 costs 5.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or GLM-5?

GLM-5 is cheaper. It lists at $1 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 or GLM-5 better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.4 versus 49.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and GLM-5 share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 35 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5 has 45.