Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.2

GLM 5.2 leads Claude Opus 4.5 on coding, 61.1 to 44.0 on the Vibe Coding Index, and GLM 5.2 costs 5.7x less per output token ($4.40 vs $25.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 78 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Claude Opus 4.5 Replace GLM 5.2
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic
Coding
44.0
Overall
55.7
Output $/M
$25.00
20
GLM 5.2Z.ai
Coding
61.1
Overall
62.5
Output $/M
$4.40
58
vs boards won of 78 shared

Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.2: which to pick

Pick GLM 5.2 for coding: it scores 61.1 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 LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.

Model AClaude Opus 4.5Anthropic44.0/1003 independent benchmarks$1.37 per solved taskModel BGLM 5.2Z.ai61.1/1004 independent benchmarks$0.86 per solved task
Shared results
78
Claude Opus 4.5 only
30
GLM 5.2 only
20
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 5.2 61.1 from 4 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 12.3 points apart on average over 10 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): Claude Opus 4.5 20.6% against GLM 5.2 64.0%, 43.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.5 $25.00 against GLM 5.2 $4.40 per million output tokens, 5.7x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.5 takes 200K tokens, GLM 5.2 1.05M.

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 5.2Ties
Coding28
Intelligence02
Agentic work15
Reasoning95
Math15
Knowledge55
Web design08
General220
All shared boards2058
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index28
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.2Leader
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 WebDev14941604GLM 5.2
AA Coding IndexNot measured68.8Only GLM 5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)83.7%69.5%Claude Opus 4.5
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)76.4%82.8%GLM 5.2
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)20.6%64.0%GLM 5.2
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured37.9%Only GLM 5.2 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.5%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured67.8%Only GLM 5.2 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured45.1%Only GLM 5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)87.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
SciCodeNot measured51.2%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)47.0%50.8%GLM 5.2
Terminal-Bench63.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
FrontierCodeNot measured24.5%Only GLM 5.2 measured
GSO-Bench26.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
WeirdML63.7%70.1%GLM 5.2
Cybench82.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1047.0Only GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: coding15031487Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: software and IT14831486GLM 5.2
LMArena WebDev: React14781617GLM 5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTML15101565GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.2Leader
AA Intelligence Index29.133.7GLM 5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index150.1151.9GLM 5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.2Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured38.4Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building web apps11591222GLM 5.2
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps11561241GLM 5.2
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps11891159Claude Opus 4.5
Design Arena: agents building Android apps11761178GLM 5.2
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1142Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1206Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1125Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1170Only GLM 5.2 measured
SREBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured49.7%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured31.3%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured61.5%Only GLM 5.2 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom89.5%99.1%GLM 5.2
APEX-AgentsNot measured45.2%Only GLM 5.2 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
PostTrainBenchNot measured31.7%Only GLM 5.2 measured
OSWorld66.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Vending-Bench 2$4,967$8,314GLM 5.2
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)77.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index95
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.2Leader
GPQA Diamond85.9%85.6%Claude Opus 4.5
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)83.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.6%89.5%GLM 5.2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)30.1%41.1%GLM 5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)86.0%91.9%GLM 5.2
ARC-AGI80.0%77.0%Claude Opus 4.5
ARC-AGI-237.6%22.8%Claude Opus 4.5
SimpleBench62.0%58.8%Claude Opus 4.5
Chess puzzles14.0%22.0%GLM 5.2
Mystery game puzzles22.0%19.0%Claude Opus 4.5
EBR-bench14.3%9.5%Claude Opus 4.5
VPCT40.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14761481GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: expert14871487Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14821481Claude Opus 4.5
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%62.6%Claude Opus 4.5
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.2Leader
AIME95.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
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%86.4%GLM 5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 334.4%59.2%GLM 5.2
FrontierMath, tier 44.9%29.3%GLM 5.2
ProofBench36.0%35.0%Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: math14631483GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: mathematical work14681489GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index55
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.2Leader
MMLU Pro87.3%86.7%Claude Opus 4.5
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.6%84.1%Claude Opus 4.5
CaseLaw (Vals AI)62.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)65.1%66.1%GLM 5.2
TaxEval (Vals AI)74.9%73.3%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%40.8%Claude Opus 4.5
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)89.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
SimpleQA Verified45.7%34.2%Claude Opus 4.5
GeoBench75.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: science14541489GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14441475GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: legal and government14591486GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: business and finance14481451GLM 5.2
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 index08
Web design benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.2Leader
Design Arena: websites12471285GLM 5.2
Design Arena: UI components12351294GLM 5.2
Design Arena: game dev12281268GLM 5.2
Design Arena: data viz12431285GLM 5.2
Design Arena: 3D12131287GLM 5.2
Design Arena: all code categories12421287GLM 5.2
Design Arena: SVG11801213GLM 5.2
Design Arena: ASCII art11901191GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index220
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.2Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)52.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)85.3%83.5%Claude Opus 4.5
IFBench58.0%73.3%GLM 5.2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)77.3%78.3%GLM 5.2
DTBench89.9%93.6%GLM 5.2
LMCA44.5%45.8%GLM 5.2
CL-bench21.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured55.6%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Furniture assembly28.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
LMArena Text14511470GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: instruction following14781466Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: creative writing14451463GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: English14611475GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: non-English14381459GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Chinese14701522GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: German14491470GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Japanese14171450GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Korean14241440GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: French14711479GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Spanish14571478GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Russian14471468GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Polish14391456GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: multi-turn14661469GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: longer queries14791480GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: writing and language14521463GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14341450GLM 5.2
LMArena Document1462Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 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 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM 5.2Leader
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 5.2$0.0036Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5$0.325Fits in one request
GLM 5.2$0.083Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5$1.25Exceeds the context window
GLM 5.2$0.324Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 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 5.2
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.5Z.ai GLM 5.2
MakerAnthropicZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 24, 2025June 16, 2026
Context window200K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$5.00$1.40
Output $/Mtok$25.00$4.40
Coding index44.061.1
Independent measurements behind it34
Cost per solved task$1.37$0.86
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than GLM 5.2 for coding?

Pick GLM 5.2 for coding: it scores 61.1 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 LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.2?

Claude Opus 4.5 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; GLM 5.2 costs $1.40 and $4.40. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Claude Opus 4.5 costs $1.37 and GLM 5.2 $0.86.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.2?

GLM 5.2, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.2 comparison based on?

78 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 5.2's on 4. 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-5-2" title="Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.2, 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-5-2">LLMBenchmark.ai, Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.2</a></p>