AnthropicClaude Opus 5VSZ.ai (Zhipu AI)GLM-5.2
Our Take
We recommend Claude Opus 5 if you need peak intelligence for reasoning and coding tasks, or the 4.7x cheaper GLM-5.2 to optimize your budget for high-volume pipelines. While Claude Opus 5 holds a clear performance lead, it carries a heavy price premium. Choose Claude Opus 5 for complex logic, or GLM-5.2 for budget efficiency.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%, while GLM-5.2 scored 62.1%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Claude Opus 5 scored 93.7%, while GLM-5.2 scored 91.2%.
Cost Efficiency: GLM-5.2 pricing ($1.4/M input, $4.4/M output) is 4.7x cheaper than Claude Opus 5 ($5/M input, $25/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+17.1%)
79.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+2.5%)
93.7%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
62.1%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
91.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)4.7x cheaper
$2.15Input: $1.40 | Output: $4.40Context Window
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 5 vs GLM-5.2
GLM-5.2 is cheaper than Claude Opus 5. GLM-5.2 has a blended cost of $2.15/1M tokens, which is about 4.7x cheaper than Claude Opus 5 at $10.00/1M tokens.
Claude Opus 5 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 79.2% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to GLM-5.2 which scores 62.1%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 5 and GLM-5.2.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.