AI tool comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs GLM-5.1
Which one should you ship with? Here is the side-by-side panel verdict, pricing read, reviewer split, and community vote comparison.
AI Models
Claude Opus 4.7
Anthropic's flagship model with task budgets for disciplined agentic work
75%
Panel ship
—
Community
Paid
Entry
Claude Opus 4.7, released April 16, 2026, is Anthropic's strongest model to date and introduces a meaningful new primitive for agentic work: task budgets. A task budget gives Claude a token target for the entire agentic loop — thinking, tool calls, tool results, and final output — with a running countdown that lets the model prioritize and wind down gracefully rather than running out of context mid-task. Beyond task budgets, Opus 4.7 ships with substantially better vision at higher resolutions, improved creative output quality (better interfaces, slides, and docs), and gains on the hardest software engineering tasks where Opus 4.6 struggled to maintain context across long refactors. Pricing stays flat at $5/1M input and $25/1M output. Available day-one across Claude Pro, API, Amazon Bedrock, Vertex AI, Microsoft Foundry, Claude Code, Cursor, and GitHub Copilot, Opus 4.7 cements Anthropic's position as the go-to model for serious agentic workloads — particularly long-horizon coding sessions that previously needed close human supervision.
AI Models
GLM-5.1
#1 on SWE-Bench Pro — Zhipu's open 754B MoE beats GPT-5 on coding
50%
Panel ship
—
Community
Paid
Entry
Z.ai (formerly Zhipu AI) has released GLM-5.1, a 754B-parameter Mixture-of-Experts model that's currently sitting at #1 on SWE-Bench Pro with a score of 58.4 — outperforming GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 on long-horizon software engineering tasks. The model ships under MIT license with full weights on HuggingFace. GLM-5.1 was specifically designed for agentic software engineering workflows: multi-file reasoning, autonomous test-run-fix loops, and extended coding sessions that span hundreds of tool calls. It's not just a capability leap — at 754B active parameters via sparse MoE, it can be run more efficiently than a dense model of equivalent capability on a sufficiently provisioned cluster. The SWE-Bench Pro result is significant because that benchmark is harder to game than vanilla SWE-Bench Verified. It tests whether a model can resolve real GitHub issues with correct tests, proper diffs, and no regressions — the things that actually matter in production. For anyone running self-hosted coding agents or building on open models, GLM-5.1 just became the new baseline to beat.
Reviewer scorecard
“Task budgets are the most useful new feature in a model release this year. I can now hand off a 4-hour refactor with confidence that Claude won't run off the rails or stall out at 80%. The hard coding gains are real — agentic loops on big codebases feel qualitatively different.”
“If the SWE-Bench Pro numbers hold up under independent replication, this is the first open model that can genuinely replace a proprietary API for serious agentic coding work. MIT license means you can fine-tune and deploy on your own infra. This is a big deal.”
“At $25/1M output tokens, a single complex agentic loop can easily cost $5-10. Task budgets help, but they're a bandaid on the fundamental cost problem. For most teams, Sonnet 4.6 delivers 80% of the capability at 20% of the price.”
“754B parameters is not something 99% of developers can run locally. You need a multi-GPU cluster or serious cloud spend. The benchmark numbers are from Z.ai's own evaluations, and Zhipu has a history of optimistic benchmarking. Wait for independent replications.”
“Task budgets represent a real shift in how we think about agent control — not 'stop the agent if it goes wrong' but 'give the agent enough rope to finish, not enough to hang itself.' This mental model will propagate across the industry.”
“A Chinese lab shipping an MIT-licensed model that tops global coding benchmarks is a watershed moment for open-source AI. The geopolitical implications are real — this is the model that makes US export controls look strategically shortsighted.”
“The higher-resolution vision and tasteful output quality improvements are immediately noticeable in design-adjacent tasks. Generating polished slides and landing pages feels less like prompting a robot and more like briefing a designer.”
“Unless you're building coding tools or agent infrastructure, a 754B MoE model doesn't move the needle for creative applications. The energy and infra overhead for creative use cases doesn't pencil out versus smaller, cheaper models.”
Weekly AI Tool Verdicts
Get the next comparison in your inbox
New AI tools ship daily. We compare them before you waste an afternoon.