Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic |  GLM 5.3 FlashZ.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 | #29 of 4654.6 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.4–69.8 |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #40 of 44$0.380 per LiveBench case | #2 of 44$0.0087 per LiveBench case |
| 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 | #1 of 3877.3 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 68.2–84.9 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $5.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $0.075Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $25.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $0.25Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 200K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 2, 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-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,447.0898% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-5-20251101-high-32k; 95% CI [1443.17965746, 1450.98398333]; votes 36239; rank 49 | 1,471.89100% of row best · rating · glm-5.3-flash; 95% CI [1465.37026588, 1478.41920488]; votes 10038; rank 24 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 77.39100% of row best · percent · claude-opus-4-5-20251101-thinking-64k-high-effort · 15,203 output tokens / case | 73.2795% of row best · percent · glm-5.3-flash · 34,707 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo 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-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Z.ai |
| Family | Claude 4 | Glm 5 3 Flash |
| Model | Claude Opus 4.5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Version | Claude Opus 4.5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-11-24 | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-05-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 200K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 320B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 18B |
| License | Unknown | MIT |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Together Ai (Standard), Z.ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | agents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
Claude Opus 4.5 Capabilities
GLM 5.3 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image 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 5.3 Flash FAQs
Is Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.3 Flash, 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 5.3 Flash?+
Claude Opus 4.5 is $5.00 and GLM 5.3 Flash is $0.075 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 4.5 is $25.00 and GLM 5.3 Flash is $0.25 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 4.5 supports 200K and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: The verified common benchmarks do not produce a majority winner.
Can Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash be self-hosted?+
GLM 5.3 Flash is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Opus 4.5 is not marked open weight; GLM 5.3 Flash is open weight.
Can Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.3 Flash understand images?+
Claude Opus 4.5 is documented with image input; GLM 5.3 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Opus 4.5 supports 64K and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 131K output tokens.
Do Claude Opus 4.5 and GLM 5.3 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 4.5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.3 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Claude Opus 4.5 has 1 sourced provider route; GLM 5.3 Flash has 4, so GLM 5.3 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
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.