Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-5.1
Wins 6 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math · Long documents
Wins 1 of 7 areas
Following instructions
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger all-rounder.GLM-5.1 is cheaper and better at following instructions.
Scores updated · 53 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software61Claude Opus 4.66 of 7 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking40Claude Opus 4.64 of 4 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math31Claude Opus 4.63 of 4 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own21Claude Opus 4.62 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up21Claude Opus 4.62 of 3 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 4.61 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01GLM-5.11 of 1 test
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
GLM-5.1 costs 81% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Opus 4.6 pulls ahead
- Unpublished advanced math problemsFrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)+29.2points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+24.9points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+23.3points ahead
Where GLM-5.1 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+32.9points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+23.2points ahead
- Multi-step tasks using many real software toolsMCP Atlas+9.1points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 53 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 4.6
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.6 by 7.151.944.8+7.1
- SWE-bench ProGLM-5.1 by 553.458.4+5
- SWE-bench VerifiedClaude Opus 4.6 by 4.680.876.2+4.6
- SWE-bench MultilingualClaude Opus 4.6 by 4.577.873.3+4.5
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Opus 4.6 by 38 rating points15461508+38 rating
- LiveCodeBench v6Claude Opus 4.6 by 3.188.885.7+3.1
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Opus 4.6 by 346.243.2+3
AgentsClaude Opus 4.6
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.6 by 24.955.931+24.9
- MCP AtlasGLM-5.1 by 9.162.771.8+9.1
- BrowseCompClaude Opus 4.6 by 4.78479.3+4.7
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.6
- SimpleBenchClaude Opus 4.6 by 12.567.655.1+12.5
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.6 by 9.839.930.1+9.8
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.6 by 812.64.6+8
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.6 by 2.889.686.8+2.8
FactsClaude Opus 4.6
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.1 by 32.937.270.1+32.9
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.6 by 23.34723.7+23.3
- SimpleQA VerifiedClaude Opus 4.6 by 134734+13
MathClaude Opus 4.6
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Claude Opus 4.6 by 29.26636.8+29.2
- HMMT Feb. 2026Claude Opus 4.6 by 13.696.282.6+13.6
- IMOAnswerBenchGLM-5.1 by 8.575.383.8+8.5
- AIME 2026Claude Opus 4.6 by 1.496.795.3+1.4
Other results30 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- Vending-Bench 2Claude Opus 4.6 by 238318 rating points801759563441+238318 rating
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 4.6 by 42.467.625.2+42.4
- Apex (Pass@1)Claude Opus 4.6 by 2334.511.5+23
- ToolathlonClaude Opus 4.6 by 16.156.840.7+16.1
- Apex Shortlist (Pass@1)Claude Opus 4.6 by 13.585.972.4+13.5
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.6 by 12.813.70.8+12.8
- AgentWorldBench - SWEClaude Opus 4.6 by 12.564.552.1+12.5
- AgentWorldBench - OSClaude Opus 4.6 by 11.170.259.1+11.1
- frontiermath_tier_4_v1Claude Opus 4.6 by 10.422.912.5+10.4
- AgentWorldBench - TerminalClaude Opus 4.6 by 10.257.547.3+10.2
- GDPval-AA (Elo)Claude Opus 4.6 by 84 rating points16191535+84 rating
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGLM-5.1 by 7.748.155.8+7.7
- NL2RepoClaude Opus 4.6 by 7.149.842.7+7.1
- AgentWorldBench - SearchClaude Opus 4.6 by 6.829.322.5+6.8
- AgentWorldBench - OverallClaude Opus 4.6 by 6.557.851.3+6.5
- Tool-DecathlonClaude Opus 4.6 by 6.547.240.7+6.5
- LiveBenchClaude Opus 4.6 by 6.176.370.2+6.1
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.6 by 5.831.926.1+5.8
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)GLM-5.1 by 5.692.197.7+5.6
- CyberGymClaude Opus 4.6 by 5.173.868.7+5.1
- browsecomp_with_context_managerClaude Opus 4.6 by 4.78479.3+4.7
- Terminal-Bench 2.0GLM-5.1 by 3.665.469+3.6
- MMLU-ProClaude Opus 4.6 by 3.189.186+3.1
- AgentWorldBench - AndroidClaude Opus 4.6 by 2.661.759.1+2.6
- AgentWorldBench - MCPClaude Opus 4.6 by 2.369.967.6+2.3
- HMMT Nov. 2025Claude Opus 4.6 by 2.396.394+2.3
- MCPAtlas Public (Pass@1)Claude Opus 4.6 by 273.871.8+2
- τ³-BenchClaude Opus 4.6 by 1.872.470.6+1.8
- HLE (with tools)Claude Opus 4.6 by 153.352.3+1
- AgentWorldBench - Webtie51.451.5tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM-5.1?
Claude Opus 4.6 wins six of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, math and long documents. GLM-5.1 wins following instructions, and costs 81% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6. It wins 6 of the 7 coding tests both models report; GLM-5.1 wins 1.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 costs $1.38 and $4.40. That makes GLM-5.1 about 81% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 53 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 23 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 30 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.