Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking vs GLM-5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.44/100
Margin
8.6pts
winning →
Z.AI
66.06/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking #69 (Estimated); GLM-5 #28 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and GLM-5 share 12 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking; 37 to GLM-5.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
12
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking only
4
GLM-5 only
37
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and GLM-5 is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and GLM-5
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingΔGLM-5
AgenticClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-556.2
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-566.3
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-560.8
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-566.4
MathClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-556.3
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-583.1
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-592.6

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGLM-5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableGLM-5$1 input / $3.2 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableGLM-574 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableGLM-51.64 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5 Thinking200KGLM-5200KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGLM-5Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 89.5%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
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGLM-5Result
Vibe Code BenchSource 20.63%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 49.5%46.2%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking 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
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGLM-5Result
AA-LCRSource 74.0%63.3%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
CritPtSource 4.6%2.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
LongBench v2Source 60.8%Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 63.3%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGLM-5Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.8%39.5%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.6%82.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-HLESource 28.4%27.2%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 13.3%2.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.7%26.9%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 59.8%34.0%GLM-5 leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 89.5%Not comparable
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
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGLM-5Result
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
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGLM-5Result
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource 91.3%Not comparable
MMLU-ProXSource 83.1%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 55.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGLM-5Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.0%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12771278GLM-5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGLM-5Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.0%72.3%GLM-5 leads
IFEvalSource 92.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 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 Opus 4.5 Thinking and GLM-5 today?

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

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.