Claude Opus 4.7 vs GLM 5.1 for coding
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger coder of the two on benchmarks, but GLM 5.1 can be the better pick when cost, speed, or context window matter more. Below: a side-by-side spec table and exactly when to pick each.
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Opus 4.7 | GLM 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Tsinghua) |
| Released | Nov 2025 | 2026 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 72% | 58% |
| HumanEval | 94% | — |
| MMLU | 88% | 87% |
| Context window | 200K | 128K |
| Max output | 32K | 32K |
| Input price (per 1M) | $15 | Free (self-hosted) |
| Output price (per 1M) | $75 | Free (self-hosted) |
| Price tier | Premium | Free |
| Speed | Slow/Reasoning | Standard |
| Hosting | Closed/API | Open-weights |
| Modality | Multimodal (vision) | Text-only |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jan 2026 | 2026 |
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if…
- It scores higher on SWE-bench Verified (72% vs 58%), the best proxy for real-world coding.
- It has a larger context window (200K vs 128K).
- It's tuned for complex refactors, agentic coding, hard debugging, deep reasoning.
Pick GLM 5.1 if…
- It's cheaper (Free tier vs Premium).
- It responds faster (Standard).
- It's tuned for top-tier agentic engineering, complex multi-step workflows, sustained long-horizon coding, self-improving agent loops.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs GLM 5.1: which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger coder of the two on benchmarks, but GLM 5.1 can be the better pick when cost, speed, or context window matter more. See the full spec table for SWE-bench, HumanEval, MMLU, context window, and pricing on both. Benchmarks are a directional signal, not a guarantee for your codebase — the most reliable test is running both on a real task you care about.
Compare these head-to-head with live data, or build a full stack around your pick — Flowpicker shows compatibility and monthly cost.
Open the live comparison →More comparisons
See the full model leaderboard ranked by SWE-bench, HumanEval, and MMLU.