Coding
Directional only- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 74.5
- GLM-5
- 66.3
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Claude 4.1 Opus vs GLM-5
Updated September 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
GLM-5 has the higher public score, 65.68 versus 44.87, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GLM-5
GLM-5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GLM-5
GLM-5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 Claude 4.1 Opus only
1 Shared
35 GLM-5 only
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 1
- GLM-5 only
- 35
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- GLM-5
- 56.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- GLM-5
- 60.8
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- GLM-5
- 66.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- GLM-5
- 56.3
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- GLM-5
- 83.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- GLM-5
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- GLM-5
- 92.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus | GLM-5 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 74.5 | 66.3 | Directional only1 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | 56.2 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 60.8 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 66.4 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 56.3 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | 83.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 92.6 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $0.0525
- Fits in one request
- GLM-5
- $0.0026
- Fits in one request
GLM-5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $0.975
- Fits in one request
- GLM-5
- $0.0596
- Fits in one request
GLM-5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $4.05
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- GLM-5
- $0.252
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude 4.1 OpusGLM-5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 4.1 Opus
200K
GLM-5
200K
API model ID
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
GLM-5
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not published
GLM-5
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
GLM-5
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
GLM-5
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
GLM-5
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 4.1 Opus
Non-Reasoning
GLM-5
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
GLM-5
Open Weight
License
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
GLM-5
Open Weight
Release date
Claude 4.1 Opus
2025-08-01
GLM-5
2026-03-01
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- GLM-5 has the higher public score, 65.68 versus 44.87, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.975 vs $0.0596. Cache-heavy agent loop: $4.05 vs $0.252.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 200K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence37 rows
Agentic
JobBench
Claude 4.1 Opus21.9%SourceGLM-5—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-556.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-557.7%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-554.1%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-565.6%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-514.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-538%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-531.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-560.8%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-569.8%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-543.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-550.99%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude 4.1 Opus74.5%SourceGLM-577.8%SourceGLM-5 leads this result
SWE-bench Verified*
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-572.8%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-555.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-573.3%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-562.8%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-574.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-586%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-586.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-566.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-585.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-585.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-550.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-595.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-593.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-597.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-596.9%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-586.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-582.5%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-516.434%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-52.100%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Instruction following
IFEval
Claude 4.1 Opus—GLM-592.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or GLM-5?
GLM-5 has the higher public score, 65.68 versus 44.87, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or GLM-5?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4.1 Opus or GLM-5?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude 4.1 Opus or GLM-5?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0525 on Claude 4.1 Opus and $0.0026 on GLM-5; repository review costs $0.975 and $0.0596; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $4.05 and $0.252. Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 4.1 Opus or GLM-5?
Both models list the same context window, 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 3, 2026
Watch Claude 4.1 Opus vs GLM-5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.