Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026

Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-5.3 benchmark

Name: Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-5.3 AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic) and GLM-5.3 (Zhipu) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead by 16 points (1,574 vs 1,558; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, GLM-5.3 resolves 76.4% versus 75.9% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 16, 2026)). GLM-5.3 streams faster (90 tok/s) while GLM-5.3 is the cheaper output token ($1.8/1M). Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger context window (1M tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

Anthropic

Claude Opus 4.6

Follow-on Opus release. Slightly behind 4.5 on official SWE-bench bash-only in the last published sweep; stronger long-horizon agent traces.

Elo 1,574$25/1M out

Zhipu

GLM-5.3

Z.ai Aug 14 2026 post-train of the GLM-5.2 744B base. Coding-plan live; open weights promised after a two-week safety review (z.ai/blog/glm-5.3).

Elo 1,558$1.8/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs GPT-5

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude Opus 4.6 (4)vsGLM-5.3 (6)

Claude Opus 4.6: 4W (40%)Overall: GLM-5.3GLM-5.3: 6W (60%)

← Claude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3 →

Claude Opus 4.6 (3/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,574vs1,558

Coding Elo

1,570vs1,586

SWE-bench

75.9%vs76.4%

LiveBench

72%vs70.8%

GPQA Diamond

84.8%vs83.2%

Claude Opus 4.6: 3WGLM-5.3: 2W

GLM-5.3 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

64 tok/svs90 tok/s

Time to first token

360 msvs255 ms

Claude Opus 4.6: 0WGLM-5.3: 2W

GLM-5.3 (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$25/1Mvs$1.8/1M

Input price

$5/1Mvs$0.5/1M

Context window

1Mvs200k

Claude Opus 4.6: 1WGLM-5.3: 2W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageEven 3–3

Preference Elo

Claude Opus 4.6

16 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

GLM-5.3

26 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

GLM-5.3

$23.20/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

+1%1,574

EloHigh is better

1,558

Code Elo

High is better

1,570

Code EloHigh is better

1,586+1%

LiveBench

High is better

+2%72%

LiveBenchHigh is better

70.8%

SWE-bench

High is better

75.9%

SWE-benchHigh is better

76.4%+1%

GPQA

High is better

+2%84.8%

GPQAHigh is better

83.2%

TTFT

Low is better

360 ms

TTFTLow is better

255 ms+41%

Speed

High is better

64 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

90 tok/s+41%

In $

Low is better

$5/1M

In $Low is better

$0.5/1M+900%

Out $

Low is better

$25/1M

Out $Low is better

$1.8/1M+1289%

Context

High is better

+400%1M

ContextHigh is better

200k

Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.

Save up to 92% with GLM-5.3

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

Claude Opus 4.6$550.00 / mo

In: $175.00Out: $375.00

GLM-5.3$44.50 / mo

In: $17.50Out: $27.00

Estimated Cost Delta

GLM-5.3 is estimated to save $505.50/month ($6,066/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
GLM-5.3:Pick GLM-5.3 when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
2
GLM-5.3:Pick GLM-5.3 when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.
3
Claude Opus 4.6:Pick Claude Opus 4.6 for million-token RAG or long-document jobs.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsGLM-5.3

Higher SWE-bench (76.4%).

High-volume chatGLM-5.3

Lower output list price ($1.8/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIGLM-5.3

Lower TTFT (255 ms).

Long-document RAGClaude Opus 4.6

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionClaude Opus 4.6

Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.6).

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	GLM-5.3	Higher SWE-bench (76.4%).
High-volume chat	GLM-5.3	Lower output list price ($1.8/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	GLM-5.3	Lower TTFT (255 ms).
Long-document RAG	Claude Opus 4.6	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	Claude Opus 4.6	Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.6).

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

View all news

launchAug 14, 2026

GLM-5.3 (Aug 14): Z.ai post-train of the 5.2 744B base

Coding-plan live; open weights promised after a two-week safety review. Newest Zhipu row.

launchJun 18, 2026

GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs

Strong Chinese/English coding. 5.3 is the new row; 5.2 stays so the delta is visible.

launchMay 10, 2026

Claude Opus 4.6: the May follow-on that still shows up in old bookmarks

Slightly behind 4.5 on one official SWE-bench sweep; stronger long-horizon traces. We keep the row for old vs URLs.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/claude-opus-4-6-vs-glm-5-3/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Anthropic

Claude Opus 4.6

Elo 1,574

LiveBench72%

SWE-bench75.9%

Speed64 tok/s

Output cost$25/1M

Zhipu

GLM-5.3

Elo 1,558

LiveBench70.8%

SWE-bench76.4%

Speed90 tok/s

Output cost$1.8/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM-5.3?: Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,574). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM-5.3?: GLM-5.3 leads SWE-bench at 76.4% vs 75.9%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: GLM-5.3 output tokens are $1.8/1M versus $25/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM-5.3?: GLM-5.3 has the lower time-to-first-token (255 ms vs 360 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.
Which has the larger context window?: Claude Opus 4.6 accepts 1M tokens versus 200k.
Can I self-host either model?: Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM-5.3 Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Claude Opus 4.6 matchups →|All GLM-5.3 matchups →

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Opus 4.5 (previous opus)Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Opus 4.8 (next opus)GLM-5.3 vs GLM-5.2 (previous glm)Claude Sonnet 5 vs GLM-5.3 Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs GLM-5.3

Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-5.3 benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude Opus 4.6 (4)vsGLM-5.3 (6)

Claude Opus 4.6: 4W (40%)Overall: GLM-5.3GLM-5.3: 6W (60%)

← Claude Opus 4.6GLM-5.3 →

Claude Opus 4.6 (3/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,574vs1,558

Coding Elo

1,570vs1,586

SWE-bench

75.9%vs76.4%

LiveBench

72%vs70.8%

GPQA Diamond

84.8%vs83.2%

Claude Opus 4.6: 3WGLM-5.3: 2W

GLM-5.3 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

64 tok/svs90 tok/s

Time to first token

360 msvs255 ms

Claude Opus 4.6: 0WGLM-5.3: 2W

GLM-5.3 (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$25/1Mvs$1.8/1M

Input price

$5/1Mvs$0.5/1M

Context window

1Mvs200k

Claude Opus 4.6: 1WGLM-5.3: 2W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsGLM-5.3

Higher SWE-bench (76.4%).

High-volume chatGLM-5.3

Lower output list price ($1.8/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIGLM-5.3

Lower TTFT (255 ms).

Long-document RAGClaude Opus 4.6

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionClaude Opus 4.6

Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.6).

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	GLM-5.3	Higher SWE-bench (76.4%).
High-volume chat	GLM-5.3	Lower output list price ($1.8/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	GLM-5.3	Lower TTFT (255 ms).
Long-document RAG	Claude Opus 4.6	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	Claude Opus 4.6	Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.6).

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM-5.3?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,574). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM-5.3?

GLM-5.3 leads SWE-bench at 76.4% vs 75.9%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

GLM-5.3 output tokens are $1.8/1M versus $25/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or GLM-5.3?

GLM-5.3 has the lower time-to-first-token (255 ms vs 360 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.

Which has the larger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 accepts 1M tokens versus 200k.

Can I self-host either model?

Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM-5.3 Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Claude Opus 4.6

GLM-5.3

GLM-5.3

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

GLM-5.3 (Aug 14): Z.ai post-train of the 5.2 744B base

GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs

Claude Opus 4.6: the May follow-on that still shows up in old bookmarks

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Claude Opus 4.6

GLM-5.3

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Claude Opus 4.6

GLM-5.3

GLM-5.3

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

GLM-5.3 (Aug 14): Z.ai post-train of the 5.2 744B base

GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs

Claude Opus 4.6: the May follow-on that still shows up in old bookmarks

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Claude Opus 4.6

GLM-5.3

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons