$ diff claude-opus-5 glm-5-2
Claude Opus 5 vs GLM-5.2
Values come from Claude Opus 5 and GLM-5.2, where each is cited to its source. This page states no benchmark result and ranks neither model — it puts two published specifications next to each other. Where a lab has not published a figure, the row says so rather than guessing.
AnthropicClaude Opus 5
- context
- 1M
- weights
- closed
- $/M in
- $5
- $/M out
- $25
- context
- 1M
- weights
- open
- $/M in
- $0.73
- $/M out
- $2.3
What actually differs
- Context window
- Identical — both accept 1M tokens, so context length is not a reason to pick either.
- Input price
- GLM-5.2 at $0.73/M against $5/M — 6.8× cheaper to feed. Standard rates: one of these labs also quotes a lower cached-input tier, which applies only when a prefix is reused — see the full spec below.
- Output price
- GLM-5.2 at $2.3/M against $25/M — 10.9× cheaper to generate. Output dominates the bill on most agentic workloads, where the model writes far more than it reads.
- Weights
- GLM-5.2 publishes weights (MIT (unrestricted, "no regional limits")); Claude Opus 5 is API-only. That decides self-hosting, air-gapped deployment and fine-tuning before any capability question does.
- Recency
- Claude Opus 5 shipped 41 days after GLM-5.2 (2026-07-24 vs 2026-06-13).
Full spec
| Attribute | Claude Opus 5 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Z.ai |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-06-13 |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Pricing | $5/M input · $25/M output (standard); $10/M · $50/M (Fast mode, research preview) | $0.73/M input · $2.30/M output ($0.14/M cached input) — reseller pricing (OpenRouter catalogue, read 2026-07-28). Z.ai still publishes no list price of its own. |
| License | proprietary | MIT (unrestricted, "no regional limits") |
| Availability | Claude.ai, API (`claude-opus-5`), Bedrock (`anthropic.claude-opus-53`), Vertex AI, Microsoft Foundry, Claude Code, Cowork | GLM Coding Plan (highest subscription tier), standalone API, open weights, NVIDIA NIM hosted |