Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM-5.1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 27 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.22/100
Margin
3.5pts
winning →
67.74/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM-5.1 share 27 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 32 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 9 to GLM-5.1.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
27
Claude Opus 4.5 only
32
GLM-5.1 only
9
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 27 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

GLM-5.1 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.74 to 64.22. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GLM-5.1's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 62 against 57.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 30.8% to 52.3%. Claude Opus 4.5 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5.1. That is roughly 5.7x on output cost alone. GLM-5.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. GLM-5.1 gives you the larger context window at 203K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM-5.1
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔGLM-5.1
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7Margin← 10.4GLM-5.161.3
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1Margin← 5.8GLM-5.152.3
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5Margin→ 4.5GLM-5.162.0
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6Margin→ 2.8GLM-5.165.4
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4MarginNo overlapGLM-5.1Not measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapGLM-5.1Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9MarginNo overlapGLM-5.1Not measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapGLM-5.1Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.5B · GLM-5.1

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 30.8%B 52.3%
    Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 21.5
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 30.8%; GLM-5.1 scored 52.3%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 20.690%B 33.448%
    Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 12.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.5 scored 20.690%; GLM-5.1 scored 33.448%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.

  3. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 4.167%B 12.500%
    Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 8.3
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.5 scored 4.167%; GLM-5.1 scored 12.500%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.

  4. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.3%B 63.5%
    Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 4.2
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 59.3%; GLM-5.1 scored 63.5%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.

  5. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 85.3%B 82.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 2.7
    HMMT Feb 2026: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 85.3%; GLM-5.1 scored 82.6%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.5GLM-5.1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputGLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 outputGLM-5.1 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sGLM-5.1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sGLM-5.1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KGLM-5.1203KGLM-5.1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGLM-5.1 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM-5.1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%63.5%GLM-5.1 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%62.3%GLM-5.1 leads
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%70.6%GLM-5.1 leads
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%—Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%71.8%GLM-5.1 leads
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 50.6%68.7%GLM-5.1 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%97.7%GLM-5.1 leads
Gert LabsSource 64.23%60.11%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —68%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —29.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —37.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1257Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.2%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM-5.1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%58.4%GLM-5.1 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%—Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 43.2%42.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%43.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SWE-RebenchSource —62.7%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —31.46%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —55.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM-5.1Result
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%62.3%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
CritPtSource 0.3%4.6%GLM-5.1 leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM-5.1Result
GPQASource 87%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 70.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%—Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%52.3%GLM-5.1 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%40.2%GLM-5.1 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%86.8%GLM-5.1 leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%28.0%GLM-5.1 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%1.9%GLM-5.1 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%24.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%29.4%GLM-5.1 leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —86.2%Not comparable
MathGLM-5.1 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM-5.1Result
AIME26Source 95.1%95.3%GLM-5.1 leads
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%94.0%GLM-5.1 leads
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%82.6%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%83.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%33.448%GLM-5.1 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%12.500%GLM-5.1 leads
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM-5.1Result
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM-5.1Result
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%—Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%—Not comparable
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12771305GLM-5.1 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5GLM-5.1Result
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%76.3%GLM-5.1 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.74 to 64.22. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 30.8% and 52.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM-5.1?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 58.1 versus 52.3. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM-5.1?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 61.3. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 57.5. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 versus 62.6. Inside this category, MCP Atlas is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude Opus 4.5
API / mo$22,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
GLM-5.1
API / mo$4,350
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even264M/day
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.