Claude Opus 4.8 vs GLM-5.3
Wins 4 of 7 areas
Reasoning · Facts · Math · Following instructions
Wins 3 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Long documents
Claude Opus 4.8 wins more areas, narrowly.GLM-5.3 is cheaper and better at agents.
Both rank among the ten best models we track in agents.
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.
- MathCompetition and research-level math30Claude Opus 4.83 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking31Claude Opus 4.83 of 5 tests · 1 tie
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up21Claude Opus 4.82 of 3 tests
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Opus 4.81 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own03GLM-5.33 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software13GLM-5.33 of 5 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01GLM-5.31 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-5.3 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 4.8 pulls ahead
- Extremely hard research-level math problemsFrontierMath Tier 4+26.8points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+14.9points ahead
- Short factual questions, answered correctlySimpleQA Verified+12points ahead
Where GLM-5.3 pulls ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+20.2points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+16.1points ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues, working as an agentLiveBench · Agentic Coding+10.4points 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.
CodingGLM-5.3
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingGLM-5.3 by 10.450.560.9+10.4
- LMArena · WebDevGLM-5.3 by 67 rating points15561623+67 rating
- SciCodeGLM-5.3 by 4.654.459+4.6
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Opus 4.8 by 2.881.879+2.8
- Terminal-Bench 2.1tie84.683.9tie
AgentsGLM-5.3
- Terminal-Bench 4.0GLM-5.3 by 20.221.741.9+20.2
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingGLM-5.3 by 16.134.250.3+16.1
- GDPValGLM-5.3 by 9.847.857.6+9.8
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.8 by 6.448.742.3+6.4
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8 by 3.489.285.8+3.4
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.8 by 1.820.919.1+1.8
- SimpleBenchGLM-5.3 by 1.464.866.2+1.4
- GPQA Diamondtie9291.7tie
FactsClaude Opus 4.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.8 by 14.948.833.9+14.9
- SimpleQA VerifiedClaude Opus 4.8 by 125341+12
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.3 by 9.760.770.4+9.7
MathClaude Opus 4.8
- FrontierMath Tier 4Claude Opus 4.8 by 26.856.129.3+26.8
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Claude Opus 4.8 by 11.28068.8+11.2
- LiveBench · MathematicsClaude Opus 4.8 by 6.494.387.9+6.4
Following instructionsClaude Opus 4.8
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingClaude Opus 4.8 by 2.77269.3+2.7
Other results22 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.
- Program BenchClaude Opus 4.8 by 52.971.919+52.9
- Terminal-Bench 4.0GLM-5.3 by 18.223.641.8+18.2
- GDPval-AA v2GLM-5.3 by 176 rating points15931769+176 rating
- SWE-MarathonGLM-5.3 by 16.52642.5+16.5
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.8 by 14.528.814.3+14.5
- ToolathlonGLM-5.3 by 13.159.973+13.1
- NL2RepoClaude Opus 4.8 by 11.769.758+11.7
- AA Agentic IndexGLM-5.3 by 10.842.653.4+10.8
- DeepSWEGLM-5.3 by 8.95866.9+8.9
- DeepSWE 1.1GLM-5.3 by 7.95966.9+7.9
- Terminal-bench 3.0GLM-5.3 by 7.221.128.3+7.2
- Toolathlon VerifiedClaude Opus 4.8 by 6.979.973+6.9
- CyberGymGLM-5.3 by 5.778.884.5+5.7
- HLE (with tools)GLM-5.3 by 4.657.962.5+4.6
- livebench_data_analysisGLM-5.3 by 4.26670.2+4.2
- ProgramBench (Almost Solved)GLM-5.3 by 3.515.519+3.5
- AA IntelligenceGLM-5.3 by 341.844.8+3
- Agents' Last ExamGLM-5.3 by 2.825.728.5+2.8
- Agents' Last Exam (ALE-CLI)GLM-5.3 by 2.825.728.5+2.8
- PostTrainBenchGLM-5.3 by 2.637.239.8+2.6
- Artificial Analysis Coding Indextie74.374.8tie
- livebench_languagetie79.779.9tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or GLM-5.3?
Claude Opus 4.8 wins four of the seven areas where both have results: reasoning, facts, math and following instructions. GLM-5.3 wins coding, agents and long documents, and costs 81% less.
Which is better for coding?
GLM-5.3. It wins 3 of the 5 coding tests both models report; Claude Opus 4.8 wins 1, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.8 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; GLM-5.3 costs $1.40 and $4.40. That makes GLM-5.3 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 21 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 22 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.