Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs GLM 5.1

Claude Fable 5.2 leads GLM 5.1 on coding, 87.8 to 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index, and GLM 5.1 costs 9.1x less per output token ($4.40 vs $40.00 per million). Updated November 14, 2026; 30 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Claude Fable 5.2 Replace GLM 5.1
Claude Fable 5.2Anthropic
Coding
87.8
Overall
91.7
Output $/M
$40.00
30
GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
61.9
Output $/M
$4.40
0
vs boards won of 30 shared

Claude Fable 5.2 or GLM 5.1: which to pick

Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 49.2 for GLM 5.1.

Pick GLM 5.1 for output tokens 9.1x cheaper ($4.40 vs $40.00 per million).

Model AClaude Fable 5.2Anthropic87.8/1004 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved taskModel BGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved task
Shared results
30
Claude Fable 5.2 only
38
GLM 5.1 only
63
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Claude Fable 5.2 87.8 from 4 benchmarks, GLM 5.1 49.2 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Knowledge, 60.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
ProofBench: Claude Fable 5.2 100.0% against GLM 5.1 22.2%, 77.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Fable 5.2 $40.00 against GLM 5.1 $4.40 per million output tokens, 9.1x apart.
Context window
Claude Fable 5.2 takes 1M tokens, GLM 5.1 205K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryClaude Fable 5.2BarsGLM 5.1Ties
Coding80
Intelligence10
Agentic work50
Reasoning40
Math40
Knowledge10
Web design50
General20
All shared boards300
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index80
Coding benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5.1Leader
LiveBench coding79.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMArena WebDev18381508Claude Fable 5.2
AA Coding IndexNot measured55.8Only GLM 5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured81.4%Only GLM 5.1 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured76.4%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)65.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)93.8%31.5%Claude Fable 5.2
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured25.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)19.0%0.0%Claude Fable 5.2
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured56.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)62.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SciCode67.7%44.8%Claude Fable 5.2
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured43.2%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Artificial Analysis run)61.6%2.0%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierCode 2.049.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
FrontierSWE69.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
WeirdMLNot measured57.1%Only GLM 5.1 measured
ALE-Bench2509.8887.1Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1485Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1483Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: React19151504Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTML17381510Claude Fable 5.2
GameBench 299.1Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1Not measured58.7%Only GLM 5.1 measured
CursorBench 4.060.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5.1Leader
AA Intelligence Index64.6Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index173.4150.7Claude Fable 5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5.1Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured23.9Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1153Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps14021141Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps13251153Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1174Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1036Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1106Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1065Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1155Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheets14341315Claude Fable 5.2
LiveBench research94.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LiveBench browser86.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LiveBench long agentic82.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured44.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)32.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)46.1%27.9%Claude Fable 5.2
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)5.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)83.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)55.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Vals Science Index63.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured97.7%Only GLM 5.1 measured
APEX-Agents80.1%40.9%Claude Fable 5.2
Remote Labor Index41.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SpireClimb15.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$5,634Only GLM 5.1 measured
MCP AtlasNot measured75.6%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5.1Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured84.5%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LiveBench reasoning88.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)51.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured86.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)74.3%30.1%Claude Fable 5.2
HLE-Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)80.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
CritPt v2, hard subset (Artificial Analysis run)76.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)93.9%89.9%Claude Fable 5.2
ARC-AGI98.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
ARC-AGI-293.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SimpleBench94.9%55.1%Claude Fable 5.2
Chess puzzles79.0%20.0%Claude Fable 5.2
Mystery game puzzles90.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
EBR-bench90.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1473Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1477Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1482Only GLM 5.1 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Scale run)72.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
GoBench2566Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Math benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5.1Leader
AIMENot measured91.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME99.7%93.3%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 395.1%36.8%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierMath, tier 4100.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
ProofBench100.0%22.2%Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1472Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1471Only GLM 5.1 measured
MathArena82.8%19.3%Claude Fable 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5.1Leader
MMLU ProNot measured86.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.4%Only GLM 5.1 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured51.5%Only GLM 5.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured64.5%Only GLM 5.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured71.2%Only GLM 5.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured41.6%Only GLM 5.1 measured
AA-Omniscience66.8Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SimpleQA Verified94.0%34.0%Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1479Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1474Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1466Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1453Only GLM 5.1 measured
PRBench Finance47.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
PRBench Legal49.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Web design benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5.1Leader
Design Arena: websites13511290Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: UI components13711292Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: game dev13961255Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1366Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: 3D15171336Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: all code categories13731260Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1207Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1141Only GLM 5.1 measured
LiveBench design85.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5.1Leader
Vals Index71.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LiveBench data analysis81.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured61.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured72.3%Only GLM 5.1 measured
IFBenchNot measured76.3%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)83.3%73.7%Claude Fable 5.2
GDPval-AA18311125Claude Fable 5.2
DTBench99.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMCA70.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Furniture assembly90.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
ExploitBenchNot measured18.1%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1462Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1452Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1453Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1475Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1448Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1516Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1466Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1441Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1423Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1469Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1469Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1454Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1452Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1472Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1467Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1454Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1443Only GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5.1Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2$0.028Fits in one request
GLM 5.1$0.0036Fits in one request

GLM 5.1 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2$0.520Fits in one request
GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request

GLM 5.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2$2.00Fits in one request
GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds the context window

GLM 5.1 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5.1
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Fable 5.2Z.ai GLM 5.1
MakerAnthropicZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 9, 2026April 7, 2026
Context window1M205K
Input $/Mtok$8.00$1.40
Output $/Mtok$40.00$4.40
Coding index87.849.2
Independent measurements behind it43
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.60
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than GLM 5.1 for coding?

Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 49.2 for GLM 5.1. Pick GLM 5.1 for output tokens 9.1x cheaper ($4.40 vs $40.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or GLM 5.1?

Claude Fable 5.2 costs $8.00 per million input tokens and $40.00 per million output tokens; GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 and $4.40. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or GLM 5.1?

Claude Fable 5.2, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Fable 5.2 vs GLM 5.1 comparison based on?

30 benchmarks have a result for both models as of November 14, 2026. Claude Fable 5.2's coding index rests on 4 independent benchmarks and GLM 5.1's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/claude-fable-5-2-vs-glm-5-1" title="Claude Fable 5.2 vs GLM 5.1, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/claude-fable-5-2-vs-glm-5-1">LLMBenchmark.ai, Claude Fable 5.2 vs GLM 5.1</a></p>