# Claude Opus 5 vs GLM-5.1

> Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.7 to 47.6 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5.1 costs 4.7× 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-5-1
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 35

## Summary

- They share 35 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 9 categories and GLM-5.1 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.1 to 38.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GBAEval: 79.6% for Claude Opus 5 and 0% for GLM-5.1.
- GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.
- Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 67.7 | 47.6 |
| Rank | 4 | 51 |
| Context | 1M | 200K |
| Input $/M | $5 | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $4.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5: 67.0 (#5)
- GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1694 | 1509 |
| SciCode | 56.4% | 43.8% |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | 57.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1533 | 1486 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | 887.1 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 74.2% |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5: 55.5 (#1)
- GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | 40.9% |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | 5,634 |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 5: 77.1 (#3)
- GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | 55.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | 77.7% |
| CritPt | 29.1% | 4.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 19% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1525 | 1472 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.67 | 149.86 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 69.8% |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| DTBench | 97.9% | — |
| LMCA | 64.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5: 86.1 (#6)
- GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | 36.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | 99% | 22.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1533 | 1472 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 12.5% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#8)
- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 89.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | 34% |
| LMArena Expert | 1558 | 1477 |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5: 51.1 (#6)
- GLM-5.1: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#3)
- GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1500 | 1448 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1575 | 1516 |
| LMArena French | 1522 | 1478 |
| LMArena German | 1522 | 1466 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1510 | 1436 |
| LMArena Korean | 1526 | 1423 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1453 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1467 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5: 79.3 (#5)
- GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1516 | 1451 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#20)
- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1516 | 1467 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5: 79.3 (#2)
- GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1506 | 1462 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1454 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | 1592 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1496 | 1473 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5 better than GLM-5.1?

Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.7 to 47.6 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5.1 costs 4.7× 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-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 5 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 5 or GLM-5.1 better for coding?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.0 versus 48.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5 does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and GLM-5.1 share?

35 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.