Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) vs GLM-5.2 (Max)

Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or GLM-5.2 (Max) by Z AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.

Clear winner

AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback)Off the frontier

Intelligence: 42.30
Total cost: $860

Z AIGLM-5.2 (Max)Off the frontier

Intelligence: 33.70
Total cost: $2097

Verdict

Pick Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback)

GLM-5.2 (Max) vs Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback): 20.3% less intelligence, 143.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 125.5% slower end-to-end.

Metric	Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback)	GLM-5.2 (Max)	Difference
Intelligence (higher is better)	42.3	33.7	−20.3% GLM-5.2 (Max) is 20.3% less intelligent
Total AA cost (lower is better)	$860.33	$2,097.29	+143.8% GLM-5.2 (Max) is 2.4× more expensive
End-to-end time (lower is better)	12.48s	28.14s	+125.5% GLM-5.2 (Max) is 125.5% slower
Price per 1M tokens (in / out)	$4.00 / $20.0	$1.40 / $4.40
Input modalities	Text, Image	Text

Open this matchup in the interactive picker Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback): what beats it GLM-5.2 (Max): what beats it

Today's Pareto frontier

Against the frontier

Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
GLM-5.2 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.

Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback)GLM-5.2 (Max)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model

Matchup

Compare something else

Agents: Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-low/glm-5-2 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-low/glm-5-2?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill