| Signal | Claude Sonnet 4 | Delta | GLM 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 83 | +17 | |
Benchmarks | 79 | +5 | |
Pricing | 15 | +13 | |
Context window size | 84 | +6 | |
Recency | 76 | -24 | |
Output Capacity | 80 | -5 | |
| Overall Result | 4 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
9
days higher
4
days
17
days higher
Anthropic
Zhipu AI
GLM 5 saves you $863.00/month
That's $10356.00/year compared to Claude Sonnet 4 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4 | GLM 5 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 80 | 79 | Claude Sonnet 4 |
| Rank | #78 | #80 | Claude Sonnet 4 |
| Quality Rank | #78 | #80 | Claude Sonnet 4 |
| Adoption Rank | #78 | #80 | Claude Sonnet 4 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 200K | 80K | Claude Sonnet 4 |
| Pricing | $3.00/$15.00/M | $0.72/$2.30/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 83 | 67 | Claude Sonnet 4 |
| Benchmarks | 79 | 74 | Claude Sonnet 4 |
| Pricing | 15 | 2 | Claude Sonnet 4 |
| Context window size | 84 | 78 | Claude Sonnet 4 |
| Recency | 76 | 100 | GLM 5 |
| Output Capacity | 80 | 85 | GLM 5 |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 80/100 (rank #78), placing it in the top 73% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 79/100 (rank #80), placing it in the top 73% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
GLM 5 offers 83% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $45.30/month with GLM 5 vs $270.00/month with Claude Sonnet 4 - a $224.70 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
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. GLM 5 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (200K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($2.30/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (80/100) 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 Sonnet 4 and GLM 5 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.4000000000000057 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Claude Sonnet 4
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
GLM 5
83% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Claude Sonnet 4
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Claude Sonnet 4
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Claude Sonnet 4
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Anthropic
| Capability | Claude Sonnet 4 | GLM 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Modediffers | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Searchdiffers | ||
| Image Output |
Anthropic
Zhipu AI
GLM 5 saves you $19.34/month
That's 83% cheaper than Claude Sonnet 4 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 Sonnet 4 | GLM 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 200K | 80K |
| Max Output Tokens | 64,000 | 131,072 |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | May 22, 2025 | Feb 11, 2026 |
Claude Sonnet 4 scores 80/100 (rank #78) compared to GLM 5's 79/100 (rank #80), giving it a 0-point advantage. Claude Sonnet 4 is the stronger overall choice, though GLM 5 may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Claude Sonnet 4 is ranked #78 and GLM 5 is ranked #80 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
GLM 5 is cheaper at $2.30/M output tokens vs Claude Sonnet 4's $15.00/M output tokens - 6.5x more expensive. Input token pricing: Claude Sonnet 4 at $3.00/M vs GLM 5 at $0.72/M.
Claude Sonnet 4 has a larger context window of 200,000 tokens compared to GLM 5's 80,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.