← All Comparisons
Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-4.7
A detailed comparison of Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic) and GLM-4.7 (Zhipu AI) across pricing, performance, and features.
Pricing Comparison
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | GLM-4.7 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $5.00 | $0.60 | -88% |
| Output / 1M tokens | $25.00 | $2.20 | -91% |
| Context window | 200K | 200K | — |
| Max output | 32K | 128K | — |
Benchmark Comparison
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro | 89.5% | 84.3% |
| HumanEval | 95% | — |
| GPQA | 75.5% | 85.7% |
Capabilities
| Capability | Claude Opus 4.6 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| code | ✓ | ✓ |
| reasoning | ✓ | ✓ |
| text | ✓ | ✓ |
| tool-use | ✓ | ✗ |
| vision | ✓ | ✓ |
Claude Opus 4.6 Strengths
- ✓Best-in-class agentic tool use and coding
- ✓1M context available in beta (Tier 4)
- ✓Strong at following complex multi-step instructions
Claude Opus 4.6 Weaknesses
- ✗Premium pricing ($10/$37.50 at 1M context)
- ✗1M context beta is Tier 4 only
GLM-4.7 Strengths
- ✓Excellent value — strong benchmarks at $0.60/$2.20
- ✓Open-weight (MIT license)
- ✓Top scores on AIME 25 and BrowseComp
GLM-4.7 Weaknesses
- ✗No tool-use support yet
- ✗358B parameters — still heavy for self-hosting
- ✗Smaller ecosystem than OpenAI/Anthropic
Quick Verdict
Best value: GLM-4.7 is the more affordable option at $0.6/$2.2 per 1M tokens.
Higher benchmarks: Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on average across available benchmarks (86.7% avg).
Choose GLM-4.7 if cost matters most. Choose Claude Opus 4.6 if you need the best possible quality for complex tasks.