Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM 5.1

Claude Opus 4.6 leads GLM 5.1 on coding, 57.2 to 49.2 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 21, 2026; 74 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Claude Opus 4.6 Replace GLM 5.1
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic
Coding
57.2
Overall
66.0
Output $/M
$25.00
69
GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
57.5
Output $/M
$4.40
5
vs boards won of 74 shared

Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM 5.1: which to pick

Pick Claude Opus 4.6 for coding: it scores 57.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 49.2 for GLM 5.1.

Pick GLM 5.1 for output tokens 5.7x cheaper ($4.40 vs $25.00 per million) and a lower cost per solved task ($0.60 against $1.56).

Model AClaude Opus 4.6Anthropic57.2/1004 independent benchmarks$1.56 per solved taskModel BGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved task
Shared results
74
Claude Opus 4.6 only
36
GLM 5.1 only
15
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 4.6 57.2 from 4 benchmarks, GLM 5.1 49.2 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 13.1 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3: Claude Opus 4.6 66.0% against GLM 5.1 36.8%, 29.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.6 $25.00 against GLM 5.1 $4.40 per million output tokens, 5.7x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.6 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 Opus 4.6BarsGLM 5.1Ties
Coding100
Intelligence20
Agentic work71
Reasoning90
Math60
Knowledge110
Web design53
General191
All shared boards695
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index100
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
SWE-bench Verified75.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
SWE-bench Multilingual72.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDev15471508Claude Opus 4.6
AA Coding IndexNot measured55.8Only GLM 5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)84.7%81.4%Claude Opus 4.6
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)78.2%76.4%Claude Opus 4.6
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)57.6%31.5%Claude Opus 4.6
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
SciCodeNot measured44.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)48.5%43.2%Claude Opus 4.6
Terminal-Bench79.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
FrontierCode26.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
GSO-Bench41.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
WeirdML78.0%57.1%Claude Opus 4.6
Cybench93.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured887.1Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding15341485Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: software and IT15271484Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena WebDev: React15391505Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena WebDev: HTML15591508Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena WebDev: from an image1543Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
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 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
AA Intelligence Index31.926.1Claude Opus 4.6
Epoch Capabilities Index155.7149.8Claude Opus 4.6
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index71
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured23.9Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building web apps12061175Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps12201167Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps12071162Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: agents building Android apps11961180Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1053Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building games12121164Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1170Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1188Only 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 Telecom92.1%97.7%GLM 5.1
APEX-Agents46.3%40.9%Claude Opus 4.6
METR time horizons78.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
Remote Labor Index4.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
DeepResearch Bench55.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
Vending-Bench 2$8,018$5,634Claude Opus 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index90
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
GPQA Diamond89.7%84.5%Claude Opus 4.6
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)83.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)89.6%86.8%Claude Opus 4.6
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)39.9%30.1%Claude Opus 4.6
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)90.5%89.9%Claude Opus 4.6
ARC-AGI94.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
ARC-AGI-269.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
SimpleBench67.6%55.1%Claude Opus 4.6
Chess puzzles21.0%20.0%Claude Opus 4.6
Mystery game puzzles25.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
EBR-bench12.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts15251473Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: expert15441478Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English15301482Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Vision: diagrams1340Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena Vision: homework1337Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
AIME95.6%91.9%Claude Opus 4.6
OTIS Mock AIME94.4%93.3%Claude Opus 4.6
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 366.0%36.8%Claude Opus 4.6
FrontierMath, tier 426.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
ProofBench50.0%22.2%Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: math15181473Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: mathematical work15251470Claude Opus 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index110
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
MMLU Pro89.1%86.9%Claude Opus 4.6
LegalBench (Vals AI)85.3%84.4%Claude Opus 4.6
CaseLaw (Vals AI)62.1%51.5%Claude Opus 4.6
CorpFin (Vals AI)67.0%64.5%Claude Opus 4.6
TaxEval (Vals AI)76.0%71.2%Claude Opus 4.6
MortgageTax (Vals AI)68.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)95.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)49.1%41.6%Claude Opus 4.6
SimpleQA Verified47.0%34.0%Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: science15191478Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare15041474Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: legal and government15121465Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: business and finance14971452Claude Opus 4.6
FACTS Benchmark Suite41.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index53
Web design benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
Design Arena: websites12911290Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: UI components12841292GLM 5.1
Design Arena: game dev12781265Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: data viz12791366GLM 5.1
Design Arena: 3D12741336GLM 5.1
Design Arena: all code categories12891268Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: SVG12281218Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: ASCII art12551142Claude Opus 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index191
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured61.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)51.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)86.7%72.3%Claude Opus 4.6
IFBench53.1%76.3%GLM 5.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)78.0%73.7%Claude Opus 4.6
DTBench91.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMCA55.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
CL-bench20.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
Furniture assembly28.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
ExploitBenchNot measured18.1%Only GLM 5.1 measured
CL-bench Life17.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena Text15011463Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: instruction following15211453Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: creative writing15051453Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Vision1316Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: English15111476Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: non-English14881448Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: Chinese15511515Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: German15001467Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: Japanese14881435Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: Korean14641424Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: French15121470Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: Spanish15101468Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: Russian14971454Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: Polish14991449Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: multi-turn15111473Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: longer queries15181467Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: writing and language15021454Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14921442Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Vision: English1324Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1370Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1326Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena Vision: humor1314Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1274Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1331Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena Document1507Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 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 4.6$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 4.6$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 4.6$1.25Fits 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 Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.1
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.6Z.ai GLM 5.1
MakerAnthropicZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedFebruary 4, 2026April 7, 2026
Context window1M205K
Input $/Mtok$5.00$1.40
Output $/Mtok$25.00$4.40
Coding index57.249.2
Independent measurements behind it43
Cost per solved task$1.56$0.60
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than GLM 5.1 for coding?

Pick Claude Opus 4.6 for coding: it scores 57.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 49.2 for GLM 5.1. Pick GLM 5.1 for output tokens 5.7x cheaper ($4.40 vs $25.00 per million) and a lower cost per solved task ($0.60 against $1.56).

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM 5.1?

Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 costs $1.56 and GLM 5.1 $0.60.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM 5.1?

Claude Opus 4.6, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM 5.1 comparison based on?

74 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6'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-opus-4-6-vs-glm-5-1" title="Claude Opus 4.6 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-4-6-vs-glm-5-1">LLMBenchmark.ai, Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM 5.1</a></p>