Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking vs GLM-5
Head-to-head evidence from 8 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking #184 (Supported); GLM-5 #28 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and GLM-5 share 8 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking; 41 to GLM-5.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 8
- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking only
- 1
- GLM-5 only
- 41
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and GLM-5 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 8 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
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 | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Δ | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-556.2 |
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-566.3 |
| Reasoning | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-560.8 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-566.4 |
| Math | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-556.3 |
| Multilingual | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-583.1 |
| Inst. Following | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-592.6 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | GLM-5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot available | GLM-5$1 input / $3.2 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking29 tok/s | GLM-574 tok/s | GLM-5 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking15.00 s | GLM-51.64 s | GLM-5 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking200K | GLM-5200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 71.4% | 98.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 56.2% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 57.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 54.1% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 14.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 38% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 31.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 60.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 43.2% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 50.99% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | 46.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 72.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 55.1% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 74.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.7% | 39.5% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 80.9% | 82.0% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 11.9% | 27.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 85.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 50.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 2.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 34.0% | Not comparable |
Math8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 97.5% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 86.4% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 16.434% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 2.100% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and GLM-5 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and GLM-5 today?
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking: Pricing unavailable GLM-5: $1.00 input / $3.20 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
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.