Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026
In this head-to-head showdown, Claude Opus 4.8 delivers higher overall intelligence and human-preferred responses (Elo 1,598 vs 1,492), while Claude Opus 4.8 leads in SWE-bench software engineering benchmarks (78.4%), while GLM-5.2 is more budget-friendly at $3.74/1M per 1M output tokens. Review the complete breakdown below to determine which model best fits your performance and budget requirements.
10 direct benchmark disciplines evaluated across capability, speed, and cost
Prior Opus generation still billed at $5/$25. Kept as a compare baseline against Opus 5.
Zhipu flagship. Strong Chinese/English coding and agents.
Currently comparing Claude Opus 4.8 vs GLM-5.2. Alternative family tiers available.
Simulate accuracy gains vs added response time & token cost
Reasoning models “think before answering” by generating internal reasoning tokens. Higher effort improves math, coding, and logic accuracy, but increases response delay and token costs.
Δ 106 Arena Elo pts
84 tok/s
$3.74 / 1M output
Relative percentile scores computed across all active models in the benchmark catalog.
Comparing top Western standard models with China's leading frontier rival across 6 skill dimensions. Tap any spoke or dot to inspect.
Category wins across reasoning intelligence, generation speed, and token cost.
Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy
Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness
Cost per million tokens and max context window length
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | GLM-5.2 | Advantage Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preference Elo | +106 | ||
| Coding Elo | +100 | ||
| LiveBench | +8.4% | ||
| SWE-bench | +9.1% | ||
| GPQA Diamond | +6.7% | ||
| Time to first token | +60 ms | ||
| Output speed | 66 tok/s | 84 tok/s | +18 tok/s |
| Input price | $1.19/1M | +$3.81/1M | |
| Output price | $3.74/1M | +$21.26/1M | |
| Context window | +49k |
Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).
GLM-5.2 is estimated to save $452.25/month ($5,427/year).
Higher SWE-bench (78.4%).
Lower output list price ($3.74/1M).
Lower TTFT (270 ms).
Larger window (1M).
Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.8).
| Target Workload | Recommended Pick | Evaluation Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Repo / coding agents | Claude Opus 4.8 | Higher SWE-bench (78.4%). |
| High-volume chat | GLM-5.2 | Lower output list price ($3.74/1M). |
| Voice / low-latency UI | GLM-5.2 | Lower TTFT (270 ms). |
| Long-document RAG | GLM-5.2 | Larger window (1M). |
| Screenshots / vision | Claude Opus 4.8 | Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.8). |
GLM-5.2 undercuts GLM 5V Turbo by 74.2% on input at $0.31/1M, with 1,492 Elo and 69.3% SWE-bench in dated 2026 snapshots.
Opus 4.8 still bills $5/$25. We keep it so Opus 5 vs 4.8 is a real generation delta, not marketing.
Strong Chinese/English coding. 5.3 is the new row; 5.2 stays so the delta is visible.
No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!
Dynamic OpenGraph banner generated at /compare/claude-opus-4-8-vs-glm-5-2/opengraph-image
Verified Head-to-Head Telemetry
