Claude Opus 4.7 vs GLM-5.2
Wins 5 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger all-rounder.GLM-5.2 is cheaper.
Scores updated · 43 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.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking51Claude Opus 4.75 of 6 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math41Claude Opus 4.74 of 5 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software42Claude Opus 4.74 of 7 tests · 1 tie
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Claude Opus 4.71 of 5 tests · 4 ties
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up21Claude Opus 4.72 of 3 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts00Even0 each · 1 tie
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked11Even1 each
Long documents rests on a single test.
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-5.2 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 4.7 pulls ahead
- Abstract visual puzzles that people can solveARC-AGI-2+53points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+24.6points ahead
- Short factual questions, answered correctlySimpleQA Verified+17.5points ahead
Where GLM-5.2 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+16points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+14.7points ahead
- Research-level physics problemsCritPt+8.9points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 43 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 4.7
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Opus 4.7 by 5.283.177.9+5.2
- LMArena · WebDevGLM-5.2 by 48 rating points15571605+48 rating
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.7 by 3.354.551.2+3.3
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Opus 4.7 by 2.482.179.7+2.4
- SWE-bench ProClaude Opus 4.7 by 2.264.362.1+2.2
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingGLM-5.2 by 1.150.751.8+1.1
- Terminal-Bench Hardtie51.550.8tie
AgentsClaude Opus 4.7
- AA IT-Bench SREClaude Opus 4.7 by 446.742.7+4
- GDPValtie42.843.7tie
- MCP Atlastie77.376.8tie
- AA ApexAgentstie33.933.7tie
- τ-Bench V3 · Bankingtie34.634.6tie
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7
- ARC-AGI-2Claude Opus 4.7 by 5375.822.8+53
- CritPtGLM-5.2 by 8.91220.9+8.9
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 by 8.687.278.6+8.6
- SimpleBenchClaude Opus 4.7 by 2.961.758.8+2.9
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.7 by 1.991.489.5+1.9
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.7 by 1.242.341.1+1.2
FactsClaude Opus 4.7
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.7 by 24.648.924.3+24.6
- SimpleQA VerifiedClaude Opus 4.7 by 17.551.734.2+17.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.2 by 1657.773.7+16
MathClaude Opus 4.7
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Claude Opus 4.7 by 1170.259.2+11
- AIME 2026GLM-5.2 by 3.495.899.2+3.4
- LiveBench · MathematicsClaude Opus 4.7 by 3.192.889.8+3.1
- FrontierMath Tier 4Claude Opus 4.7 by 2.431.729.3+2.4
- HMMT Feb. 2026Claude Opus 4.7 by 1.493.992.5+1.4
Following instructionsEven
- IFBenchGLM-5.2 by 14.758.673.3+14.7
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingClaude Opus 4.7 by 4.466.762.3+4.4
Other results14 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.
- OfficeQA ProClaude Opus 4.7 by 39.280.641.4+39.2
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.7 by 22.927.34.4+22.9
- ARC-AGI-1Claude Opus 4.7 by 159277+15
- ToolathlonClaude Opus 4.7 by 11.159.348.2+11.1
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)GLM-5.2 by 10.588.699.1+10.5
- DeepSWEClaude Opus 4.7 by 7.85446.2+7.8
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.7 by 740.733.7+7
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.7 by 4.873.668.8+4.8
- livebench_data_analysisClaude Opus 4.7 by 4.678.373.7+4.6
- CyberGymGLM-5.2 by 4.173.177.2+4.1
- HiL-Bench (Tools-allowed)GLM-5.2 by 241.743.7+2
- livebench_languageClaude Opus 4.7 by 1.777.976.2+1.7
- AA Agentic Indextie39.539.4tie
- HLE (with tools)tie54.754.7tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or GLM-5.2?
Claude Opus 4.7 wins five of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts and math. GLM-5.2 wins none, but costs 81% less. They are level on long documents and following instructions.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7. It wins 4 of the 7 coding tests both models report; GLM-5.2 wins 2, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.7 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 costs $1.40 and $4.40. That makes GLM-5.2 about 81% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 43 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 29 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 14 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.