GLM-5.2 vs Claude Opus 5
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Wins 7 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger all-rounder.GLM-5.2 is cheaper.
Scores updated · 41 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 software06Claude Opus 56 of 6 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking06Claude Opus 56 of 6 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own04Claude Opus 54 of 4 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math03Claude Opus 53 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up12Claude Opus 52 of 3 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Claude Opus 51 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Claude Opus 51 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-5.2 costs 81% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Opus 5 pulls ahead
- Abstract visual puzzles that people can solveARC-AGI-2+67.6points ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+48points ahead
- Extremely hard research-level math problemsFrontierMath Tier 4+43.9points ahead
Where GLM-5.2 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+34.5points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 41 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 5
- SWE-bench ProClaude Opus 5 by 17.162.179.2+17.1
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingClaude Opus 5 by 13.451.865.2+13.4
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Opus 5 by 11.277.989.1+11.2
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Opus 5 by 90 rating points16051695+90 rating
- SciCodeClaude Opus 5 by 5.251.256.4+5.2
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Opus 5 by 1.879.781.5+1.8
AgentsClaude Opus 5
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Opus 5 by 48149+48
- GDPValClaude Opus 5 by 17.543.761.2+17.5
- MCP AtlasClaude Opus 5 by 976.885.8+9
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Opus 5 by 7.534.642.1+7.5
ReasoningClaude Opus 5
- ARC-AGI-2Claude Opus 5 by 67.622.890.4+67.6
- SimpleBenchClaude Opus 5 by 21.858.880.6+21.8
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 5 by 13.841.154.9+13.8
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Opus 5 by 12.678.691.2+12.6
- CritPtClaude Opus 5 by 8.220.929.1+8.2
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 5 by 3.789.593.2+3.7
FactsClaude Opus 5
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 5 by 36.624.360.9+36.6
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.2 by 34.573.739.2+34.5
- SimpleQA VerifiedClaude Opus 5 by 25.734.259.9+25.7
MathClaude Opus 5
- FrontierMath Tier 4Claude Opus 5 by 43.929.373.2+43.9
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Claude Opus 5 by 26.459.285.6+26.4
- LiveBench · MathematicsClaude Opus 5 by 5.989.895.7+5.9
Following instructionsClaude Opus 5
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingClaude Opus 5 by 1.562.363.8+1.5
Other results17 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.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 5 by 32.74.437.1+32.7
- GDPval-AA v2Claude Opus 5 by 316 rating points15081824+316 rating
- GDPval-AA v2 EloClaude Opus 5 by 314 rating points15101824+314 rating
- OfficeQA ProClaude Opus 5 by 25.541.466.9+25.5
- DeepSWE 1.1Claude Opus 5 by 24.84468.8+24.8
- JobBenchClaude Opus 5 by 22.343.465.7+22.3
- Program BenchClaude Opus 5 by 21.763.785.4+21.7
- Toolathlon VerifiedClaude Opus 5 by 20.759.980.6+20.7
- ARC-AGI-1Claude Opus 5 by 20.57797.5+20.5
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 5 by 17.133.750.8+17.1
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 5 by 16.839.456.2+16.8
- HiL-Bench (Tools-allowed)Claude Opus 5 by 13.343.757+13.3
- livebench_languageClaude Opus 5 by 12.576.288.7+12.5
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 5 by 9.268.878+9.2
- HLE (with tools)Claude Opus 5 by 8.954.763.6+8.9
- Agents' Last ExamClaude Opus 5 by 7.823.831.6+7.8
- livebench_data_analysistie73.774.5tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-5.2 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 wins all seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, math, long documents and following instructions. GLM-5.2 wins none, but costs 81% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 5. It wins 6 of the 6 coding tests both models report; GLM-5.2 wins none.
Which is cheaper?
GLM-5.2 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5 costs $5.00 and $25.00. That makes GLM-5.2 about 81% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 41 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 24 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 17 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.