Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Claude Opus 5.5vsGLM 5.3
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Opus 5.5vsGLM 5.3

GLM 5.3 is cheaper than Claude Opus 5.5 at $0.6538/M vs $4/M input tokens.

Claude Opus 5.5 and GLM 5.3 compared across 13 shared prompts
SpecClaude Opus 5.5GLM 5.3
Input price$4/M tokens$0.6538/M tokens
Output price$20/M tokens$2.0548/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens1.3M tokens
WeightsClosedOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Aug 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 13 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Claude Opus 5.5300 words
Midnight Silk Noodles Creamy, tangy peanut noodles with a gentle kick, ready faster than takeout. Serves: 2 Prep time: 5 minutes Cook time: 10 minutes Total time: 15 minutes The 7 Ingredients 8 oz (225 g) spaghetti (or any long noodle) ¼ cup creamy peanut butter 3 tablespoons soy sauce 1 tablespoon honey (or sugar) 1…
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3210 words
Golden Pantry Fried Rice Total Time: 20 minutes (5 min prep, 15 min cook) Ingredients (7 pantry staples) Cooked white rice (day-old is best) Eggs Soy sauce Garlic (minced or garlic powder) Frozen peas and carrots Canned corn Vegetable oil Instructions Prep (5 min): Break up cold rice with a fork. Drain the corn.
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Claude Opus 5.53,435 words
The Transistor in 1920: A Counterfactual Through 1980 First, a Reality Check on the Premise A transistor "invented" in 1920 would not have changed the world in 1920. The actual 1947 transistor rested on three foundations that did not exist yet: Quantum theory of solids.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.31,346 words
If the Transistor Had Arrived in 1920 The Premise: Why 1920 Was Nearly Impossible Before tracing effects, note the counterfactual requires heroic assumptions. The transistor depended on quantum mechanics (solid-state band theory, ~1928-1933), ultrapure semiconductor materials (zone refining, 1950s), and wartime radar…
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Claude Opus 5.5936 words
The 3 Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch "Decodes neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy. Works with any language, any device." (Slide 3) Why it's weak: It far exceeds the published state of the art. The best results for thought-to-text come from invasive implants.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3585 words
3 Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch "Reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it" Why it's weak: This claim is neurologically incoherent. EEG sensors detect electrical activity on the scalp after neural firing occurs — you cannot decode intent "before" the brain generates it.
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Claude Opus 5.52,280 words
Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Editor The most serious problems cluster in three areas: the sync model (client-clock LWW), cross-server propagation (per-server WebSockets with DB polling), and the CDN/auth layer, which can leak data between users. Issues are grouped by area below.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.31,311 words
Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Editor This design has serious issues across correctness, performance, and security. Let me break them down by severity. 🔴 Critical: Correctness / Data Loss Client-clock-based Last-Write-Wins (LWW) Problem: Client clocks are unreliable (skew, manual changes, timezone bugs).
Read the full answer

Advanced Longevity Plan (Biohacker)

Develop a comprehensive, cutting-edge 3-month longevity plan for a biohacker aiming to optimize longevity, physical and cognitive…

Claude Opus 5.53,099 words
The 90-Day Longevity & Performance Protocol A structured, measurable plan for the experienced biohacker How to Use This Plan Philosophy: Measure → Intervene → Re-measure. Every intervention has a hypothesis, a metric, and a decision rule.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3851 words
3-Month Advanced Longevity & Performance Optimization Protocol Note: This is an educational framework. Get baseline bloodwork and consult a physician before starting supplements/fasting, especially with any medical conditions or medications.
Read the full answer

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

Claude Opus 5.51,442 words
How Large Language Models Work: Three Explanations For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of an LLM as a single, very large pure function: f(tokens[0..n]) → probability distribution over tokens[n+1]. Text is chunked into tokens (roughly word fragments, from a vocabulary of about 100k).
Read the full answer
GLM 5.31,164 words
The Software Engineer You've probably written autocomplete logic before, so you're right to be skeptical of the naive version: a Markov chain that looks up "what usually comes after 'the'" is trivially dumb.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5
GLM 5.3
GLM 5.3

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

GLM 5.3 costs 9.7x less per token.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Claude Opus 5.5
Input
$4.00
Output
$20.00
GLM 5.3
Input
$0.65
6.1× cheaper
Output
$2.05
9.7× cheaper

GLM 5.3 is cheaper on both: 6.1× input, 9.7× output.

Where to run it

35 hosts, cheapest first

Claude Opus 5.54 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Amazon Bedrock$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·99.8% upAzure AI Foundry$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·100% upAnthropic$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·100% upGoogle Vertex AI$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·100% up
GLM 5.331 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Baidu Qianfanfp8$0.56 in·$1.76 out·1M·99.7% upDDeepInfrafp4$0.56 in·$2.50 out·1M·93.4% upMMorph$0.65 in·$2.06 out·1M·99.7% upIInferenceNet$0.68 in·$2.28 out·1M·99.6% upRReka$0.76 in·$2.57 out·262k·99.4% upSSail Researchfp8$0.77 in·$4.00 out·1M·99.9% up
25 more hostsFewer hosts
Iio.netfp8$0.78 in·$2.62 out·262k·99.6% upNNovitafp8$0.78 in·$2.46 out·1M·99.7% upIInceptronfp4$0.79 in·$2.65 out·1M·98.2% upPPhala$0.84 in·$2.64 out·1M·99.8% upDDigitalOcean$0.91 in·$2.86 out·1M·99.6% upGGMI Cloudfp8$0.98 in·$3.08 out·1M·99.6% upMMakorafp4$1.05 in·$4.20 out·980k·98.4% upSSiliconFlowfp8$1.12 in·$3.52 out·1M·99.3% upAlibaba Cloud$1.19 in·$3.74 out·1M·99.8% upDDecartfp4$1.19 in·$3.74 out·1M·99.2% upFFriendli$1.26 in·$3.96 out·1M·100% upAAkashMLfp8$1.30 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.9% upAAtlasCloudfp8$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·98.2% upBBasetenfp4$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.8% upCloudflare Workers AI$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1.3M·100% upCCrusoefp4$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.4% upFFireworks$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.3% upMistralnvfp4$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.9% upModal$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·98.5% upPParasailfp8$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·98.8% upPPrimeIntellect$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·100% upTTogether$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.4% upVVenice$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·96.7% upWWafer$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.9% upZ.aifp8$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.9% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 25 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Claude Opus 5.5 is developed by Anthropic while GLM 5.3 is developed by Zhipu AI. Claude Opus 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs GLM 5.3's 1.3M. You can compare their actual outputs across 13 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Claude Opus 5.5 and GLM 5.3 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 13 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4/M input tokens and GLM 5.3 costs $0.6538/M input tokens. GLM 5.3 is $3.35/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Opus 5.5 and GLM 5.3 across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Claude Opus 5.5 logoSolar Mini 4 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 logoQwen3.8 Max Prime logo
GLM 5.3 vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGLM 5.3 Prime logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
GLM 5.3 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoCommand A+ logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
GLM 5.3 vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGPT-6 Sol Pro logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Sol ProLanded Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 logoGPT-6 Luna logo
GLM 5.3 vs GPT-6 LunaLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Claude Opus 5.5 logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6Same lab
Claude Opus 5.5 logoClaude Fable 5.1 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Fable 5.1Same lab
GLM 5.3 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
GLM 5.3 vs GLM 5.3 FlashSame lab
GLM 5.3 logoGLM 5.3 FlashX logo
GLM 5.3 vs GLM 5.3 FlashXSame lab
GLM 5.3 logoMistral Small 4 logo
GLM 5.3 vs Mistral Small 4New provider
GLM 5.3 logoMistral Small Creative logo
GLM 5.3 vs Mistral Small CreativeNew provider
GLM 5.3 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
GLM 5.3 vs Muse Glimmer 30BNew provider
GLM 5.3 logoMuse Spark 1.1 logo
GLM 5.3 vs Muse Spark 1.1Same size

Model pages

Claude Opus 5.5 logo
Claude Opus 5.519 outputs, specs and price
GLM 5.3 logo
GLM 5.313 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed