Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM 5.2

GLM 5.2 leads Claude Opus 4.6 on coding, 61.1 to 57.2 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; 81 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Claude Opus 4.6 Replace GLM 5.2
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic
Coding
57.2
Overall
66.0
Output $/M
$25.00
60
GLM 5.2Z.ai
Coding
61.1
Overall
62.5
Output $/M
$4.40
21
vs boards won of 81 shared

Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM 5.2: which to pick

Pick GLM 5.2 for coding: it scores 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 57.2 for Claude Opus 4.6.

Pick Claude Opus 4.6 for work measured by LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or FrontierCode, where it leads.

Model AClaude Opus 4.6Anthropic57.2/1004 independent benchmarks$1.56 per solved taskModel BGLM 5.2Z.ai61.1/1004 independent benchmarks$0.86 per solved task
Shared results
81
Claude Opus 4.6 only
29
GLM 5.2 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 4.6 57.2 from 4 benchmarks, GLM 5.2 61.1 from 4 benchmarks.
Widest category
Reasoning, 9.6 points apart on average over 14 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ARC-AGI-2: Claude Opus 4.6 69.2% against GLM 5.2 22.8%, 46.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.6 $25.00 against GLM 5.2 $4.40 per million output tokens, 5.7x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.6 takes 1M 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 4.6BarsGLM 5.2Ties
Coding56
Intelligence11
Agentic work44
Reasoning113
Math51
Knowledge100
Web design53
General193
All shared boards6021
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index56
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.2Leader
SWE-bench Verified75.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
SWE-bench Multilingual72.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDev15471604GLM 5.2
AA Coding IndexNot measured68.8Only GLM 5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)84.7%69.5%Claude Opus 4.6
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)78.2%82.8%GLM 5.2
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)57.6%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
SciCodeNot measured51.2%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)48.5%50.8%GLM 5.2
Terminal-Bench79.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
FrontierCode26.6%24.5%Claude Opus 4.6
GSO-Bench41.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
WeirdML78.0%70.1%Claude Opus 4.6
Cybench93.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1047.0Only GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: coding15341487Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: software and IT15271486Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena WebDev: React15391617GLM 5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTML15591565GLM 5.2
LMArena WebDev: from an image1543Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.2Leader
AA Intelligence Index31.933.7GLM 5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index155.7151.9Claude Opus 4.6
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index44
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.2Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured38.4Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building web apps12061222GLM 5.2
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps12201241GLM 5.2
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps12071159Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: agents building Android apps11971178Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1142Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building games12121206Claude Opus 4.6
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 Telecom92.1%99.1%GLM 5.2
APEX-Agents46.3%45.2%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
PostTrainBenchNot measured31.7%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Vending-Bench 2$8,018$8,314GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index113
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.2Leader
GPQA Diamond89.7%85.6%Claude Opus 4.6
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)83.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)89.6%89.5%Claude Opus 4.6
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)39.9%41.1%GLM 5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)90.5%91.9%GLM 5.2
ARC-AGI94.0%77.0%Claude Opus 4.6
ARC-AGI-269.2%22.8%Claude Opus 4.6
SimpleBench67.6%58.8%Claude Opus 4.6
Chess puzzles21.0%22.0%GLM 5.2
Mystery game puzzles25.0%19.0%Claude Opus 4.6
EBR-bench12.7%9.5%Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: hard prompts15251481Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: expert15441487Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English15301481Claude 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%62.6%Claude Opus 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index51
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.2Leader
AIME95.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
OTIS Mock AIME94.4%86.4%Claude Opus 4.6
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 366.0%59.2%Claude Opus 4.6
FrontierMath, tier 426.8%29.3%GLM 5.2
ProofBench50.0%35.0%Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: math15181483Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: mathematical work15251489Claude 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 index100
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.2Leader
MMLU Pro89.1%86.7%Claude Opus 4.6
LegalBench (Vals AI)85.3%84.1%Claude Opus 4.6
CaseLaw (Vals AI)62.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)67.0%66.1%Claude Opus 4.6
TaxEval (Vals AI)76.0%73.3%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%40.8%Claude Opus 4.6
SimpleQA Verified47.0%34.2%Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: science15191489Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare15041475Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: legal and government15121486Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: business and finance14971451Claude 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 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.2Leader
Design Arena: websites12911285Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: UI components12811294GLM 5.2
Design Arena: game dev12771268Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: data viz12791285GLM 5.2
Design Arena: 3D12731287GLM 5.2
Design Arena: all code categories12881287Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: SVG12271213Claude Opus 4.6
Design Arena: ASCII art12551191Claude 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 index193
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 5.2Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)51.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)86.7%83.5%Claude Opus 4.6
IFBench53.1%73.3%GLM 5.2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)78.0%78.3%GLM 5.2
DTBench91.2%93.6%GLM 5.2
LMCA55.8%45.8%Claude Opus 4.6
CL-bench20.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured55.6%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Furniture assembly28.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
CL-bench Life17.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena Text15011470Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: instruction following15211466Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: creative writing15051463Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Vision1316Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: English15111475Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: non-English14881459Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: Chinese15511522Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: German15001470Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: Japanese14881450Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: Korean14641440Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: French15121479Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: Spanish15101478Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: Russian14971468Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: Polish14991456Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: multi-turn15111469Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: longer queries15181480Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: writing and language15021463Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14921450Claude 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 11 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 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GLM 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 4.6$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 4.6$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 4.6$1.25Fits in one request
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 4.6 and GLM 5.2
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.6Z.ai GLM 5.2
MakerAnthropicZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedFebruary 4, 2026June 16, 2026
Context window1M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$5.00$1.40
Output $/Mtok$25.00$4.40
Coding index57.261.1
Independent measurements behind it44
Cost per solved task$1.56$0.86
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than GLM 5.2 for coding?

Pick GLM 5.2 for coding: it scores 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 57.2 for Claude Opus 4.6. Pick Claude Opus 4.6 for work measured by LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or FrontierCode, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM 5.2?

Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 costs $1.56 and GLM 5.2 $0.86.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM 5.2?

GLM 5.2, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM 5.2 comparison based on?

81 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6's coding index rests on 4 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-4-6-vs-glm-5-2" title="Claude Opus 4.6 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-4-6-vs-glm-5-2">LLMBenchmark.ai, Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM 5.2</a></p>