GLM-5.3 vs Claude Opus 5
Wins 1 of 7 areas
Following instructions
Wins 5 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger all-rounder.GLM-5.3 is cheaper and better at following instructions.
Both rank among the ten best models we track in agents.
Scores updated · 39 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 thinking05Claude Opus 55 of 5 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software14Claude Opus 54 of 5 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math03Claude Opus 53 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own12Claude Opus 52 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up12Claude Opus 52 of 3 tests
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10GLM-5.31 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts00Even0 each · 1 tie
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 5 pulls ahead
- Extremely hard research-level math problemsFrontierMath Tier 4+43.9points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+27points ahead
- Short factual questions, answered correctlySimpleQA Verified+18.9points ahead
Where GLM-5.3 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+31.2points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+8.2points ahead
- Follows detailed instructions exactlyLiveBench · Instruction Following+5.5points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 39 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 5
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Opus 5 by 68 rating points16231691+68 rating
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Opus 5 by 5.283.989.1+5.2
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingClaude Opus 5 by 4.360.965.2+4.3
- SciCodeGLM-5.3 by 2.65956.4+2.6
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Opus 5 by 2.57981.5+2.5
AgentsClaude Opus 5
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingGLM-5.3 by 8.250.342.1+8.2
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Opus 5 by 7.141.949+7.1
- GDPValClaude Opus 5 by 3.657.561.1+3.6
ReasoningClaude Opus 5
- SimpleBenchClaude Opus 5 by 14.466.280.6+14.4
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 5 by 12.642.354.9+12.6
- CritPtClaude Opus 5 by 1019.129.1+10
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Opus 5 by 5.485.891.2+5.4
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 5 by 1.591.793.2+1.5
FactsClaude Opus 5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.3 by 31.270.439.2+31.2
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 5 by 2733.960.9+27
- SimpleQA VerifiedClaude Opus 5 by 18.94159.9+18.9
MathClaude Opus 5
- FrontierMath Tier 4Claude Opus 5 by 43.929.373.2+43.9
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Claude Opus 5 by 16.868.885.6+16.8
- LiveBench · MathematicsClaude Opus 5 by 7.887.995.7+7.8
Following instructionsGLM-5.3
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingGLM-5.3 by 5.569.363.8+5.5
Other results18 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 5 by 66.41985.4+66.4
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 5 by 22.814.337.1+22.8
- Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Claude Opus 5 by 20.98.129+20.9
- SWE Refactor BenchClaude Opus 5 by 20.610.431+20.6
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Opus 5 by 1041.851.8+10
- livebench_languageClaude Opus 5 by 8.879.988.7+8.8
- Toolathlon VerifiedClaude Opus 5 by 7.67380.6+7.6
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 5 by 644.850.8+6
- GDPval-AA v2Claude Opus 5 by 55 rating points17691824+55 rating
- livebench_data_analysisClaude Opus 5 by 4.470.274.5+4.4
- LOCA-Bench 256KClaude Opus 5 by 3.450.353.7+3.4
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 5 by 3.274.878+3.2
- PostTrain Bench v1.1Claude Opus 5 by 2.937.540.4+2.9
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 5 by 2.853.456.2+2.8
- DeepSWE 1.1Claude Opus 5 by 1.966.968.8+1.9
- HiL-Bench (Tools-allowed)GLM-5.3 by 1.358.357+1.3
- HLE (with tools)Claude Opus 5 by 1.162.563.6+1.1
- Agents' Last Examtie28.528.6tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-5.3 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 wins five of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts and math. GLM-5.3 wins following instructions, and costs 81% less. They are level on long documents.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 5. It wins 4 of the 5 coding tests both models report; GLM-5.3 wins 1.
Which is cheaper?
GLM-5.3 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-5.3 about 81% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 39 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 18 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.