Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.1

GLM 5.1 leads Claude Opus 4.5 on coding, 49.2 to 44.0 on the Vibe Coding Index, and GLM 5.1 costs 5.7x less per output token ($4.40 vs $25.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 72 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Claude Opus 4.5 Replace GLM 5.1
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic
Coding
44.0
Overall
55.7
Output $/M
$25.00
28
GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
57.5
Output $/M
$4.40
42
vs boards won of 72 shared, 2 tied

Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.1: which to pick

Pick GLM 5.1 for coding: it scores 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 44.0 for Claude Opus 4.5.

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 for work measured by LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Model AClaude Opus 4.5Anthropic44.0/1003 independent benchmarks$1.37 per solved taskModel BGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved task
Shared results
72
Claude Opus 4.5 only
36
GLM 5.1 only
17
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 Opus 4.5 44.0 from 3 benchmarks, GLM 5.1 49.2 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Web design, 7.8 points apart on average over 8 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
IFBench: Claude Opus 4.5 58.0% against GLM 5.1 76.3%, 18.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.5 $25.00 against GLM 5.1 $4.40 per million output tokens, 5.7x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.5 takes 200K 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 Opus 4.5BarsGLM 5.1Ties
Coding541 tie
Intelligence20
Agentic work15
Reasoning441 tie
Math24
Knowledge74
Web design17
General614
All shared boards28422 ties
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index54
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.1Leader
SWE-bench Verified79.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
SWE-bench (full test set)52.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
LMArena WebDev14941508GLM 5.1
AA Coding IndexNot measured55.8Only GLM 5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)83.7%81.4%Claude Opus 4.5
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)76.4%76.4%Tie
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)20.6%31.5%GLM 5.1
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured25.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured56.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)87.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
SciCodeNot measured44.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)47.0%43.2%Claude Opus 4.5
Terminal-Bench63.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
GSO-Bench26.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
WeirdML63.7%57.1%Claude Opus 4.5
Cybench82.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured887.1Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding15031485Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: software and IT14831484GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: React14781505GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: HTML15101508Claude Opus 4.5
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.1Leader
AA Intelligence Index29.126.1Claude Opus 4.5
Epoch Capabilities Index150.1149.8Claude Opus 4.5
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.1Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured23.9Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building web apps11591175GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps11561167GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps11891162Claude Opus 4.5
Design Arena: agents building Android apps11761182GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1053Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1164Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1120Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1163Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheetsNot measured1315Only GLM 5.1 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured44.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured27.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom89.5%97.7%GLM 5.1
APEX-AgentsNot measured40.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
METR time horizons75.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Remote Labor Index3.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
GDPval45.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
BALROG43.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
DeepResearch Bench54.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
OSWorld66.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Vending-Bench 2$4,967$5,634GLM 5.1
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)77.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index44
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.1Leader
GPQA Diamond85.9%84.5%Claude Opus 4.5
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)83.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.6%86.8%GLM 5.1
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)30.1%30.1%Tie
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)86.0%89.9%GLM 5.1
ARC-AGI80.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
ARC-AGI-237.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
SimpleBench62.0%55.1%Claude Opus 4.5
Chess puzzles14.0%20.0%GLM 5.1
Mystery game puzzles22.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
EBR-bench14.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
VPCT40.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14761473Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: expert14871478Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14821482GLM 5.1
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index24
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.1Leader
AIME95.4%91.9%Claude Opus 4.5
MGSM (Vals AI)95.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
AA Math Index91.3Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)91.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
OTIS Mock AIME86.1%93.3%GLM 5.1
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 334.4%36.8%GLM 5.1
FrontierMath, tier 44.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
ProofBench36.0%22.2%Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: math14631473GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work14681470GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index74
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.1Leader
MMLU Pro87.3%86.9%Claude Opus 4.5
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.6%84.4%Claude Opus 4.5
CaseLaw (Vals AI)62.6%51.5%Claude Opus 4.5
CorpFin (Vals AI)65.1%64.5%Claude Opus 4.5
TaxEval (Vals AI)74.9%71.2%Claude Opus 4.5
MortgageTax (Vals AI)68.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)95.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)49.2%41.6%Claude Opus 4.5
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)89.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
SimpleQA Verified45.7%34.0%Claude Opus 4.5
GeoBench75.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: science14541478GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14441474GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government14591465GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14481452GLM 5.1
FACTS Benchmark Suite43.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index17
Web design benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.1Leader
Design Arena: websites12471290GLM 5.1
Design Arena: UI components12351292GLM 5.1
Design Arena: game dev12281265GLM 5.1
Design Arena: data viz12431366GLM 5.1
Design Arena: 3D12131336GLM 5.1
Design Arena: all code categories12421268GLM 5.1
Design Arena: SVG11801218GLM 5.1
Design Arena: ASCII art11901141Claude Opus 4.5
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index614
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.1Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured61.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)52.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)85.3%72.3%Claude Opus 4.5
IFBench58.0%76.3%GLM 5.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)77.3%73.7%Claude Opus 4.5
DTBench89.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
LMCA44.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
CL-bench21.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Furniture assembly28.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
ExploitBenchNot measured18.1%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text14511463GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14781453Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: creative writing14451453GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: English14611476GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English14381448GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese14701515GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: German14491467GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese14171435GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Korean14241424Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: French14711470Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: Spanish14571468GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian14471454GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish14391449GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14661473GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14791467Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: writing and language14521454GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14341442GLM 5.1
LMArena Document1462Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 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 Opus 4.5$0.018Fits in one request
GLM 5.1$0.0036Fits in one request

GLM 5.1 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5$0.325Fits in one request
GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request

GLM 5.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5$1.25Exceeds the context window
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 Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.5Z.ai GLM 5.1
MakerAnthropicZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 24, 2025April 7, 2026
Context window200K205K
Input $/Mtok$5.00$1.40
Output $/Mtok$25.00$4.40
Coding index44.049.2
Independent measurements behind it33
Cost per solved task$1.37$0.60
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than GLM 5.1 for coding?

Pick GLM 5.1 for coding: it scores 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 44.0 for Claude Opus 4.5. Pick Claude Opus 4.5 for work measured by LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.1?

Claude Opus 4.5 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 and $4.40. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Claude Opus 4.5 costs $1.37 and GLM 5.1 $0.60.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.1?

GLM 5.1, with 205K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.1 comparison based on?

72 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5's coding index rests on 3 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-opus-4-5-vs-glm-5-1" title="Claude Opus 4.5 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-opus-4-5-vs-glm-5-1">LLMBenchmark.ai, Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.1</a></p>