Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-5.1

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks. GLM-5.1 is 4.7x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

7 benchmarks

Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 3 benchmarks (BrowseComp, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam), while GLM-5.1 is better at 3 benchmarks (CyberGym, MCP Atlas, Terminal-Bench 2.0).

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Thu Apr 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

GLM-5.1 costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 3.6x more expensive than GLM-5.1 ($1.40/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 5.7x more expensive than GLM-5.1 ($4.40/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 4.6 is more expensive than GLM-5.1.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Apr 09 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input tokens$5.00
Output tokens$25.00
Best providerAnthropic
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.1
Input tokens$1.40
Output tokens$4.40
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Opus 4.6 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to GLM-5.1's 200,000 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.1
Input200,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Thu Apr 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Claude Opus 4.6 supports multimodal inputs, whereas GLM-5.1 does not.

Claude Opus 4.6 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Opus 4.6

Text
Images
Audio
Video

GLM-5.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.6 is licensed under a proprietary license, while GLM-5.1 uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Closed source

GLM-5.1

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.6 was released on 2026-02-05, while GLM-5.1 was released on 2026-04-07.

GLM-5.1 is 2 months newer than Claude Opus 4.6.

Claude Opus 4.6

Feb 5, 2026

2 months ago

GLM-5.1

Apr 7, 2026

2 days ago

2mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Opus 4.6 is available from Anthropic. GLM-5.1 is available from ZAI.

Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M

GLM-5.1

z logo
Unknown Organization
Input Price:Input: $1.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.40/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (1,000,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher BrowseComp score (84.0% vs 79.3%)
Higher GPQA score (91.3% vs 86.2%)
Higher Humanity's Last Exam score (53.1% vs 52.3%)
Zhipu AI
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights
Higher CyberGym score (68.7% vs 66.6%)
Higher MCP Atlas score (71.8% vs 59.5%)
Higher Terminal-Bench 2.0 score (69.0% vs 65.4%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.1

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-5.1

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 is made by Anthropic and GLM-5.1 is made by Zhipu AI. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Claude Opus 4.6 scores Vending-Bench 2: 100.0%, AIME 2025: 99.8%, Tau2 Telecom: 99.3%, Graphwalks parents >128k: 95.4%, MRCR v2 (8-needle): 93.0%. GLM-5.1 scores Vending-Bench 2: 100.0%, AIME 2026: 95.3%, HMMT 2025: 94.0%, GPQA: 86.2%, IMO-AnswerBench: 83.8%.
GLM-5.1 is 3.6x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output via anthropic. GLM-5.1 costs $1.40/M input and $4.40/M output via z.
Claude Opus 4.6 supports 1.0M tokens and GLM-5.1 supports 200K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 200K), input pricing ($5.00 vs $1.40/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Claude Opus 4.6 is developed by Anthropic and GLM-5.1 is developed by Zhipu AI.