Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs GLM-4.6
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 #96 (Estimated); GLM-4.6 #85 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GLM-4.6 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 12 to GLM-4.6.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 10
- GLM-4.6 only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.5 only becomes the better choice if mathematics 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 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-4.6 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 55.12 versus 53.61. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
GLM-4.6 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 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.
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 Sonnet 4.5 | Δ | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.511.2 | Margin← 7.8 | GLM-4.63.4 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.555.4 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.6Not measured |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.577.2 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.6Not measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Sonnet 4.513.6 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.6Not measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.583.4 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.6Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 13.495%B 3.819%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.5Δ 9.7FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 13.495%; GLM-4.6 scored 3.819%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 4.167%B 2.128%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.5Δ 2FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 4.167%; GLM-4.6 scored 2.128%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-4.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 output | GLM-4.6Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | GLM-4.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | GLM-4.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5200K | GLM-4.6200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic6 benchmarks
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 23.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 63.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 5.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -31.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 20.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 66.1% | Not comparable |
MathClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1219 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 36.7% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GLM-4.6?
GLM-4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.12 to 53.61. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 13.495% and 3.819%.
Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GLM-4.6?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 11.2 versus 3.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.