Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 1 category and GLM-5.3-Flash in 9 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 53.1 to 22.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 12.6% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 55.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash.
- GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- GLM-5.3-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 49.6 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-08-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 32K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.3 (#69), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.7 (#26)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1614 |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1506 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 303.55 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | — | 63.4% |
| FrontierCode | — | 31.8% |
| SciCode | — | 51.6% |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 34.8 (#38), GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.3 (#41)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 52.8% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 14% |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 31.6 (#70), GLM-5.3-Flash: 31.7 (#69)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 14% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1490 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.11 | 151.9 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| CritPt | — | 15.4% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 52.5% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.15 |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.0 (#267), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#38)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 55.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 93.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1430 | 1499 |
| ProofBench | — | 21% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 41.9 (#93), GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#33)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 90.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1512 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
Multimodal GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.2 (#114), GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.6 (#25)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1304 |
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.1 (#90), GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.2 (#24)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1462 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1529 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1495 |
| LMArena German | 1412 | 1457 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1420 |
| LMArena Korean | 1381 | 1443 |
| LMArena Russian | 1421 | 1472 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1471 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.8 (#53), GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.8 (#17)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1480 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#60), GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.3 (#41)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1479 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.6 (#70), GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.4 (#49)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1471 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1440 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1471 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GLM-5.3-Flash?
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or GLM-5.3-Flash?
GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or GLM-5.3-Flash better for coding?
GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.7 versus 44.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.3-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and GLM-5.3-Flash share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3-Flash has 36.