Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Claude Opus 4.5 
GLM 5.3 Flash Verdict
- Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) and GLM 5.3 Flash are level on quality (60.7 vs 61.1).
- Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) is stronger in agents & tools, composite, instruction following, maths.
- GLM 5.3 Flash is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, multimodal, reasoning, human preference.
- GLM 5.3 Flash is 84× cheaper ($0.119 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
- GLM 5.3 Flash streams 2.0× faster (90 vs 45 tokens per second).
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 60.7 | 61.1 |
| Agents & tools score | 74.6 | 52.1 |
| Coding score | 56.4 | 64.3 |
| Composite score | 65.8 | 61.7 |
| Instruction following score | 54.8 | – |
| Knowledge score | 61.0 | 67.7 |
| Long context score | 65.2 | 66.6 |
| Maths score | 64.0 | – |
| Multimodal score | 58.0 | 65.5 |
| Reasoning score | 58.6 | 67.5 |
| Human preference score | – | 67.6 |
| Blended price $/M | $10.00 | $0.119 |
| Output speed | 45 tok/s | 90 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 17.3 s | 24.9 s |
| Context window | 200k | 1M |
| SciCode | – | 46.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | – | 151.4 |
| LMArena Text | – | 1474 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | – | 1496 |
| LMArena Coding | – | 1534 |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1605 |
| LMArena Vision | – | 1296 |
| LMArena Agent | – | 2 |
| LiveBench | – | 71.6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 77.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 79.0% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 56.8% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 81.2% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 76.4% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 77.3% |
| AA Intelligence Index | 29.1 | 41.9 |
| IFBench | 58.0% | – |
| AA-LCR | 77.3% | 80.0% |
| MMMU-Pro | 74.0% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | 14 | 7.5 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 47.0% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 86.6% | 91.2% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 30.1% | 39.9% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 51.6% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 89.5% | – |
| AIME (Vals) | 95.4% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | 83.7% | – |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.3% | – |
| IOI | 20.3% | – |
| LegalBench | 84.6% | – |
| CorpFin | 65.1% | – |
| TaxEval | 74.9% | – |
| MedQA | 95.9% | – |
| MGSM | 95.2% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 76.4% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 85.9% | – |
| 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 2026-09-10. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash: questions
- Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than GLM 5.3 Flash?
- Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) and GLM 5.3 Flash are level on quality (60.7 vs 61.1). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; GLM 5.3 Flash is ahead overall as of 2026-09-10, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than GLM 5.3 Flash for coding?
- GLM 5.3 Flash scores higher in coding (64 vs 56 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than GLM 5.3 Flash for agentic tasks?
- Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in agentic tasks (75 vs 52 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?
- GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper: $0.119 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 Flash?
- GLM 5.3 Flash streams faster: 90 against 45 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- GLM 5.3 Flash accepts more context: 1M against 200k tokens.