GLM-5.2vsClaude Opus 4.8

Across 4 shared benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.8 leads overall: GLM-5.2 wins 1, Claude Opus 4.8 wins 3, with 0 ties and an average score difference of -2.65.

智谱AI
GLM-5.2

智谱AI · 2026-06-13 · Reasoning model

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.8

Anthropic · 2026-05-28 · Reasoning model

GLM-5.21 win(25%)(75%)3 winsClaude Opus 4.8

Benchmark scores

Grouped by capability, sorted by largest gap within each. 4 shared benchmarks.

General Knowledge

Claude Opus 4.8 2/2
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Claude Opus 4.8Diff
HLE54.708 / 159Thinking (With Tools)57.905 / 159Extended (with tools)-3.20
GPQA Diamond91.2015 / 179Thinking (No Tools)93.606 / 179Thinking High (No Tools)-2.40

AI Agent - Tool Usage

GLM-5.2 1/1
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Claude Opus 4.8Diff
TerminalBench 2.1814 / 14Thinking High (With Tools)78.905 / 14Thinking High (With Tools)+2.10

Coding and Software Engineer

Claude Opus 4.8 1/1
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Claude Opus 4.8Diff
SWE-Bench Pro - Public62.105 / 44Thinking (With Tools)69.203 / 44Extended (with tools)-7.10

Specs

FieldGLM-5.2Claude Opus 4.8
Publisher智谱AIAnthropic
Release date2026-06-132026-05-28
Model typeReasoning modelReasoning model
ArchitectureMoEDense
Parameters753.33BNot available
Context length1M1M
Max output128K125K

API pricing

Prices use DataLearner records when available; missing fields are not inferred.

ItemGLM-5.2Claude Opus 4.8
Text input$1.4 / 1M tokens$5 / 1M tokens
Text output$4.4 / 1M tokens$25 / 1M tokens
Cache read$0.26 / 1M tokens$0.5 / 1M tokens
Cache writeNot public$6.25 / 1M tokens

Summary

  • GLM-5.2leads in:AI Agent - Tool Usage (1/1)
  • Claude Opus 4.8leads in:General Knowledge (2/2), Coding and Software Engineer (1/1)

On average across the 4 shared benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.8 scores 2.65 higher.

Largest single-benchmark gap: SWE-Bench Pro - Public — GLM-5.2 62.10 vs Claude Opus 4.8 69.20 (-7.10).

Page generated from structured model, pricing and benchmark records. No real-time LLM is used to write the prose.