Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh) vs GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh) by Anthropic or GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) 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 (Xhigh) scores 23.6 points higher (49.7 vs 26.1) but costs 3.9× as much to run the benchmark ($5868 vs $1487; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 26.1, and GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) when 26.1 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh) | GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 49.7 | 26.1 | −47.5% GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) is 47.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,867.76 | $1,486.78 | −74.7% GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) is 74.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 37.50s | 62.92s | +67.8% GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) is 67.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $25.0 | $1.28 / $4.07 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) vs Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh): 47.5% less intelligence, 74.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 67.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh)GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)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-xhigh/glm-5-1 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-xhigh/glm-5-1?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill