Claude Opus 5 (High) vs GLM-5.3-Flash
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5 (High) by Anthropic or GLM-5.3-Flash by Z AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5 (High) scores 6.3 points higher (48.1 vs 41.8) but costs 14× as much to run the benchmark ($4332 vs $306; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5 (High) when you need intelligence above 41.8, and GLM-5.3-Flash when 41.8 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (High) | GLM-5.3-Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 48.1 | 41.8 | −13.1% GLM-5.3-Flash is 13.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,331.68 | $305.52 | −92.9% GLM-5.3-Flash is 92.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 23.65s | 38.89s | +64.4% GLM-5.3-Flash is 64.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $25.0 | $0.15 / $0.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude Opus 5 (High): 13.1% less intelligence, 92.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 64.4% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5 (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- GLM-5.3-Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Claude Opus 5 (High)GLM-5.3-FlashToday'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-high/glm-5-3-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-high/glm-5-3-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill