Claude Opus 5 vs GLM 5.2
| Signal | Claude Opus 5 | Delta | GLM 5.2 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | +33 | |
Pricing | 75 | -22 | |
Context window size | 95 | 0 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 82 | 0 | |
Benchmarks | 0 | -81 | |
| Overall Result | 1 wins | of 6 | 4 wins |
Score History
95.1
current score
Claude Opus 5
right now
78.6
current score
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
GLM 5.2
Zhipu AI
GLM 5.2 saves you $1501.60/month
That's $18019.20/year compared to Claude Opus 5 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | GLM 5.2 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 95 | 79 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Rank | #5 | #105 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Quality Rank | #5 | #105 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Adoption Rank | #5 | #105 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1000K | 1049K | GLM 5.2 |
| Pricing | $5.00/$25.00/M | $0.97/$3.04/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 67 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Pricing | 75 | 97 | GLM 5.2 |
| Context window size | 95 | 96 | GLM 5.2 |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Output Capacity | 82 | 82 | GLM 5.2 |
| Benchmarks | -- | 81 | GLM 5.2 |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 95/100 (rank #5), placing it in the top 99% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 79/100 (rank #105), placing it in the top 64% of all 290 models tracked.
Claude Opus 5 has a 17-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Choose Claude Opus 5 when you need:
- Multimodal workflows that require image understanding
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
Choose GLM 5.2 when you need:
- High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
- Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
GLM 5.2 offers 87% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $60.03/month with GLM 5.2 vs $450.00/month with Claude Opus 5 - a $389.97 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. GLM 5.2 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1049K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($3.04/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (95/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Claude Opus 5 clearly outperforms GLM 5.2 with a significant 16.5-point lead. For most general use cases, Claude Opus 5 is the stronger choice. However, GLM 5.2 may still excel in niche scenarios.
By Use Case
Best for Quality
Claude Opus 5
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
GLM 5.2
87% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Claude Opus 5
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Claude Opus 5
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Claude Opus 5
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Anthropic
- Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
- Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
- Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
- Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
| Capability | Claude Opus 5 | GLM 5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Searchdiffers | ||
| Image Output |
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
GLM 5.2
Zhipu AI
GLM 5.2 saves you $33.62/month
That's 86% cheaper than Claude Opus 5 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Claude Opus 5 | GLM 5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1M | 1.0M |
| Max Output Tokens | 128,000 | 131,072 |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | Jul 24, 2026 | Jun 16, 2026 |