Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.3
Claude Opus 4.5 
GLM 5.3 Verdict
- Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) and GLM 5.3 (max) are level on quality (59.4 vs 60.0).
- Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) is stronger in agents & tools, composite, instruction following, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal.
- GLM 5.3 (max) is stronger in coding, reasoning, human preference.
- GLM 5.3 (max) is 4.7× cheaper ($2.15 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
- GLM 5.3 (max) streams 1.5× faster (66 vs 44 tokens per second).
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) | GLM 5.3 (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 59.4 | 60.0 |
| Agents & tools score | 69.7 | 52.8 |
| Coding score | 60.5 | 64.3 |
| Composite score | 60.0 | – |
| Instruction following score | 53.5 | – |
| Knowledge score | 60.3 | 55.8 |
| Long context score | 62.5 | – |
| Maths score | 64.0 | 60.0 |
| Multimodal score | 57.0 | – |
| Reasoning score | 58.6 | 66.9 |
| Human preference score | – | 68.9 |
| Blended price $/M | $10.00 | $2.15 |
| Output speed | 44 tok/s | 66 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 13.7 s | 33.5 s |
| Context window | 200k | 1M |
| GPQA Diamond | – | 90.9% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | – | 68.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | – | 29.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | – | 91.1% |
| SimpleQA Verified | – | 41.0% |
| Terminal-Bench | – | 41.8% |
| SciCode | – | 56.5% |
| WeirdML | – | 75.4% |
| ProofBench | – | 49.0% |
| LMArena Text | – | 1486 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | – | 1509 |
| LMArena Coding | – | 1526 |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1614 |
| LMArena Agent | – | 2.6 |
| AA Intelligence Index | 29.1 | – |
| IFBench | 58.0% | – |
| AA-LCR | 77.3% | – |
| MMMU-Pro | 74.0% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | 14 | – |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 47.0% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 86.6% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 30.1% | – |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 89.5% | – |
| AIME (Vals) | 95.4% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | 83.7% | 80.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.3% | 86.8% |
| IOI | – | 68.4% |
| LegalBench | 84.6% | 84.8% |
| CorpFin | 65.1% | – |
| TaxEval | 74.9% | 72.4% |
| MedQA | 95.9% | – |
| MGSM | 95.2% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 71.5% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 76.4% | 95.4% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 85.9% | 88.1% |
| Vals Index | – | 57.0 |
| MultiChallenge | 59.0% | – |
| PRBench Finance | 46.2% | – |
| PRBench Legal | 44.2% | – |
| VISTA | 46.4% | – |
| MultiNRC | 48.6% | – |
| TutorBench | 51.2% | – |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.2% | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 80.0% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 37.6% | – |
Data as of 2026-09-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.3: questions
- Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than GLM 5.3?
- Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) and GLM 5.3 (max) are level on quality (59.4 vs 60.0). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; GLM 5.3 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-13, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than GLM 5.3 for coding?
- GLM 5.3 scores higher in coding (64 vs 61 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than GLM 5.3 for agentic tasks?
- Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in agentic tasks (70 vs 53 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.3?
- GLM 5.3 is cheaper: $2.15 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.3?
- GLM 5.3 streams faster: 66 against 44 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- GLM 5.3 accepts more context: 1M against 200k tokens.