Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5.2
Claude Opus 5.5 
GLM 5.2 Verdict
- Claude Opus 5.5 (thinking) leads on quality: 70.7 vs 63.6.
- Claude Opus 5.5 (thinking) is stronger in composite, knowledge, long context, multimodal, reasoning.
- GLM 5.2 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, instruction following, maths.
- GLM 5.2 (max) is 3.7× cheaper ($2.15 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
- GLM 5.2 (max) streams 1.4× faster (68 vs 48 tokens per second).
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (thinking) | GLM 5.2 (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.7 | 63.6 |
| Composite score | 95.0 | 70.3 |
| Knowledge score | 85.0 | 55.2 |
| Long context score | 68.5 | 65.3 |
| Multimodal score | 71.9 | – |
| Reasoning score | 95.0 | 72.1 |
| Agents & tools score | – | 63.8 |
| Coding score | – | 63.5 |
| Human preference score | – | 67.2 |
| Instruction following score | – | 71.6 |
| Maths score | – | 59.0 |
| Blended price $/M | $8.00 | $2.15 |
| Output speed | 48 tok/s | 68 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 4.2 s | 33.2 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| GPQA Diamond | – | 91.9% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | – | 59.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | – | 29.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | – | 86.4% |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | – | 78.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | – | 34.2% |
| SciCode | – | 50.5% |
| WeirdML | – | 70.1% |
| ProofBench | – | 35.0% |
| LMArena Text | – | 1472 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | – | 1493 |
| LMArena Coding | – | 1510 |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1592 |
| LMArena Agent | – | 4.4 |
| AA Intelligence Index | 57.6 | 33.7 |
| IFBench | – | 73.3% |
| AA-LCR | 84.7% | 78.3% |
| MMMU-Pro | 87.7% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | 46.4 | 4.4 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | – | 50.8% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | – | 89.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 61.4% | 41.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 66.9% | 51.2% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | – | 99.1% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 67.8% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 82.8% |
| CritPt | 31.7% | 20.9% |
| GDPval (AA) | 67.3% | 42.9% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | – | 34.6% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | – | 42.7% |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | – | 33.7% |
| Code Migration | – | 37.9% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | – | 7.1% |
| Legal Research Bench | – | 31.3% |
| ProgramBench | – | 0.5% |
| SkillsBench | – | 45.1% |
| SREBench | – | 0.0% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | – | 64.0% |
| LMArena Maths | – | 1480 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | – | 1451 |
| LMArena Instruction Following | – | 1466 |
| LMArena Multi-turn | – | 1469 |
| LMArena Longer Queries | – | 1483 |
| Chess Puzzles | – | 21.0% |
| EBR-bench | – | 9.5% |
| PostTrainBench | – | 31.7% |
| DeepSWE | – | 43.8% |
| LMCA | – | 45.8% |
| DTBench | – | 93.6% |
| ALE-Bench | – | 1010.2 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 59.6% | 1.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | – | 77.9% |
| AutomationBench | 69.5% | – |
| GDP.pdf | 26.2% | – |
| Harvey LAB | 91.2% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 66.2% | 24.3% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 41.4% | 73.7% |
| AA-Briefcase | 1822 | – |
Data as of 2026-09-22. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5.2: questions
- Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than GLM 5.2?
- Claude Opus 5.5 (thinking) leads on quality: 70.7 vs 63.6. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 5.5 (thinking) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-22, but check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or GLM 5.2?
- GLM 5.2 is cheaper: $2.15 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Opus 5.5 or GLM 5.2?
- GLM 5.2 streams faster: 68 against 48 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.