# Claude Opus 5 vs GLM-4.5-Air

> Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.5-Air costs 24× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-5-vs-glm-4-5-air
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 8 categories and GLM-4.5-Air in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.2 to 24.1.
- GLM-4.5-Air is cheaper at $0.20 / $1.10 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.
- Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- GLM-4.5-Air has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-4.5-Air |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 38.9 |
| Rank | 4 | 177 |
| Context | 1M | 131K |
| Input $/M | $5 | $0.20 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $1.10 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5)
- GLM-4.5-Air: 33.3 (#259)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-4.5-Air |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1397 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
| GSO | — | 2.9% |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1)
- GLM-4.5-Air: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-4.5-Air |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4)
- GLM-4.5-Air: 24.1 (#166)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-4.5-Air |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1379 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 43% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 29.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| DTBench | 97.9% | — |
| LMCA | 64.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 59.2 |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8)
- GLM-4.5-Air: 36.2 (#170)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-4.5-Air |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1396 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 39.1% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9)
- GLM-4.5-Air: 35.0 (#191)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-4.5-Air |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1370 |
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 8.1% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 76.2% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.3% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 59.4% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8)
- GLM-4.5-Air: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-4.5-Air |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4)
- GLM-4.5-Air: 49.1 (#135)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-4.5-Air |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1366 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1426 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1399 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | 1377 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | 1348 |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | 1308 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1373 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1386 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7)
- GLM-4.5-Air: 69.6 (#171)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-4.5-Air |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1354 |
| IFEval | — | 81.2% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21)
- GLM-4.5-Air: 41.6 (#135)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-4.5-Air |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1366 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1)
- GLM-4.5-Air: 55.9 (#139)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-4.5-Air |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1384 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1371 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| WildBench | — | 78.9% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5 better than GLM-4.5-Air?

Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.5-Air costs 24× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or GLM-4.5-Air?

GLM-4.5-Air is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.10 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 5 or GLM-4.5-Air better for coding?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 33.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and GLM-4.5-Air share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.5-Air has 27.