Which is better: GLM-5.3 or Claude Opus 4.8?

Verdict: GLM-5.3 ranks higher (#12 vs #14) and wins 5 of 8 shared benchmarks; GLM-5.3 costs less ($1.40/$4.40 vs $5.00/$25.0 per 1M tokens). AskClash compares GLM-5.3 and Claude Opus 4.8 side by side across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, AskClash ACB, and context window so you can see which model wins on each benchmark.

How do GLM-5.3 and Claude Opus 4.8 compare on coding benchmarks?

The comparison table shows SWE-bench, SWE-Pro, SWE-Atlas, Terminal-Bench, DeepSWE, and coding agent index scores for both GLM-5.3 and Claude Opus 4.8 when publicly disclosed.

LLM Comparison

GLM-5.3 vs Claude Opus 4.8: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Side-by-side GLM-5.3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 comparison across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, context window, and AskClash RWT. Green marks the winner on each benchmark.

Verdict: GLM-5.3 ranks higher (#12 vs #14) and wins 5 of 8 shared benchmarks; GLM-5.3 costs less ($1.40/$4.40 vs $5.00/$25.0 per 1M tokens).

Open live leaderboard GLM-5.3 model page Claude Opus 4.8 model page

Rank #12 vs #14AskClash overall scores 63.4 vs 61.8.

Pricing $1.40/$4.40 vs $5.00/$25.0Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.

Open Weight vs ProprietaryZ.AI vs Anthropic.

GLM-5.3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 benchmark comparison

Green cells highlight the winning model for each metric. Scores are cached from the AskClash LLM leaderboard snapshot.

Metric	GLM-5.3	Claude Opus 4.8
Overall Score	63.4	61.8
Leaderboard Rank	#12	#14
ACB	62.2	60.1
RWT	8.5	9.0
Coding Agent Index	—	72.5
HLE	62.5	57.9
GPQA	91.7	93.6
IFEval	—	62.2
SWE-bench	—	88.6
SWE-Pro	—	69.2
SWE-Atlas	—	82.5
Terminal-Bench	41.9	21.7
DeepSWE	69.0	59.0
GDPval-AA	1769.0	1889.8
OSWorld	—	83.4
MCP Atlas	—	82.2
Finance Agent	55.8	53.9
CharXiv	—	89.9
ARC-AGI 2	—	72.1
Tau2	—	94.4
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$1.40	$5.00
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$4.40	$25.0
Context Window	1M	1M
Benchmarks Published	10	16

GLM-5.3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 head-to-head charts

GLM-5.3 leads 6 and Claude Opus 4.8 leads 3 of 9 shared benchmarks. GLM-5.3 is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

GLM-5.3Claude Opus 4.8

Overall

63.4GLM-5.3

61.8Claude Opus 4.8

ACB

62.2GLM-5.3

60.1Claude Opus 4.8

RWT

8.5GLM-5.3

9.0Claude Opus 4.8

HLE

62.5GLM-5.3

57.9Claude Opus 4.8

GPQA

91.7GLM-5.3

93.6Claude Opus 4.8

Terminal-Bench

41.9GLM-5.3

21.7Claude Opus 4.8

DeepSWE

69.0GLM-5.3

59.0Claude Opus 4.8

GDPval-AA

1769.0GLM-5.3

1889.8Claude Opus 4.8

Finance Agent

55.8GLM-5.3

53.9Claude Opus 4.8

GLM-5.3

Input$1.40

Output$4.40

Workload$2.28

Context1M

Claude Opus 4.8

Input$5.00

Output$25.0

Workload$10

Context1M

Workload = published cost of 1M input + 200K output tokens. Open the live leaderboard for interactive compare charts.

More GLM-5.3 and Claude Opus 4.8 comparisons

Explore how GLM-5.3 and Claude Opus 4.8 stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM-5.3 Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-5.3 Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Opus 5 vs GLM-5.3 Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GLM-5.3 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Fable 5 vs GLM-5.3 Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8

How to read this comparison

Benchmark scores

Higher is better for all benchmark scores (SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, etc.). Green marks the model with the higher score.

Token pricing

Lower is better for input and output prices. Green marks the cheaper model per 1M tokens.

Coverage matters

Models with fewer disclosed benchmark cells may have inflated percentile scores. Check the benchmark cell count for context.

This comparison page is generated from the AskClash LLM leaderboard cache. Open the live leaderboard for real-time scores and interactive filtering.