Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 2 categories and GLM-5.1 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 55.0 to 43.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 64.4% for Claude Opus 4 and 93.3% for GLM-5.1.
- GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 42.9 | 47.6 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2026-04-07 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 200K |
| Max output | 32K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 56 | 41 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Claude Opus 4: 47.8 (#55), GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | 74.2% |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | 57.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1486 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1509 |
| SciCode | — | 43.8% |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 887.1 |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 34.5 (#39), GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 40.9% |
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,634 |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.4 (#104), GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | 55.1% |
| CritPt | 0.3% | 4.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1472 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | 149.86 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 77.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 69.8% |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Opus 4: 40.2 (#80), GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1391 | 1472 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 12.5% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 36.8% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 22.2% |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Opus 4: 43.9 (#82), GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | 89.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1384 | 1477 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34% |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 30.9 (#101), GLM-5.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | — |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Opus 4: 49.0 (#133), GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1448 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1516 |
| LMArena French | 1370 | 1478 |
| LMArena German | 1391 | 1466 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1332 | 1436 |
| LMArena Korean | 1318 | 1423 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1453 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1388 | 1467 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 4: 77.3 (#26), GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1451 |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Opus 4: 39.5 (#167), GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1467 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.4 (#85), GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1462 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1386 | 1454 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | 1592 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1473 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4 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 4 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4 or GLM-5.1 better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (47.8 vs 48.5); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 200K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and GLM-5.1 share?
27 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.