Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs GLM-4.6

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

71.94/100
Margin
16.8pts
← winning
55.12/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #12 (Supported); GLM-4.6 #85 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and GLM-4.6 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 0 to GLM-4.6.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
14
Claude Opus 4.7 only
7
GLM-4.6 only
0
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.6 only becomes the better choice if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.7 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 71.94 to 55.12. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.7's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 38.6 against 3.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 43.793% to 3.819%.

GLM-4.6 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.7 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. Claude Opus 4.7 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-4.6.

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 4.7 and GLM-4.6
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7ΔGLM-4.6
MathClaude Opus 4.738.6Margin 35.2GLM-4.63.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7B · GLM-4.6
  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 43.793%B 3.819%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 40
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%; GLM-4.6 scored 3.819%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.
  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 22.917%B 2.128%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 20.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%; GLM-4.6 scored 2.128%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.7GLM-4.6Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 outputGLM-4.6Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGLM-4.6Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGLM-4.6Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.71MGLM-4.6200KClaude Opus 4.7 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GLM-4.6Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 74%76.9%GLM-4.6 leads
Gert LabsSource 65.59%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 20.7%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 13.9%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GLM-4.6Result
Vibe Code BenchSource 71.00%3.09%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
React Native EvalsSource 82.8%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 50.1%33.1%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 38.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GLM-4.6Result
AA-LCRSource 67.0%26.3%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
CritPtSource 5.1%0.0%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GLM-4.6Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.7%23.0%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.5%63.2%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-HLESource 31.2%5.2%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 14.2%-31.6%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.5%20.8%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 51.9%66.1%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
MathClaude Opus 4.7 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GLM-4.6Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 43.793%3.819%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.917%2.128%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GLM-4.6Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 76.4%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1325Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GLM-4.6Result
AA-IFBenchSource 43.6%36.7%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or GLM-4.6?

Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 71.94 to 55.12. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 43.793% and 3.819%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or GLM-4.6?

Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 38.6 versus 3.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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.