Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.1
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic |  GLM 5.1Z.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #27 of 4655.4 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.9–70.3 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #40 of 44$0.380 per LiveBench case | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #36 of 3838.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 28.8–45.4 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $5.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $1.05Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $25.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $3.50Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 200K | 203K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,447.0899% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-5-20251101-high-32k; 95% CI [1443.17965746, 1450.98398333]; votes 36239; rank 49 | 1,462.38100% of row best · rating · glm-5.1; 95% CI [1458.52340519, 1466.22702609]; votes 48901; rank 33 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Opus 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Z.ai |
| Family | Claude 4 | Glm 5 1 |
| Model | Claude Opus 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
| Version | Claude Opus 4.5 | GLM-5.1 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-11-24 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-05-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 200K | 203K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 753.9B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | mit |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
Claude Opus 4.5 Capabilities
GLM 5.1 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.1 FAQs
Is Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.1 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.1?+
Claude Opus 4.5 is $5.00 and GLM 5.1 is $1.05 per million tokens, so GLM 5.1 is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 4.5 is $25.00 and GLM 5.1 is $3.50 per million tokens, so GLM 5.1 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.1?+
GLM 5.1 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 4.5 supports 200K and GLM 5.1 supports 203K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.1?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.1 be self-hosted?+
GLM 5.1 is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Opus 4.5 is not marked open weight; GLM 5.1 is open weight.
Can Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1 understand images?+
Claude Opus 4.5 is documented with image input; GLM 5.1 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.1?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Opus 4.5 is 64K and GLM 5.1 is —.
Do Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.1 support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 4.5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.1?+
Claude Opus 4.5 has 1 sourced provider route; GLM 5.1 has 4, so GLM 5.1 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.1?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.