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 — 744B MoE model that runs autonomously for 8 hours
50%
Panel ship
—
Community
Paid
Entry
GLM-5.1 is Z.AI's post-training upgrade of the 744B Mixture-of-Experts GLM-5 model, and it has just claimed the top spot on SWE-Bench Pro with a score of 58.4 — beating GPT-5.4 (57.7), Claude Opus 4.6 (57.3), and Gemini 3.1 Pro (54.2). The model is designed for long-horizon agentic tasks and can run autonomously for up to 8 hours across thousands of iterations on a single problem. The agentic capabilities include extended context retention, tool-calling with recovery loops, and a reinforcement-trained "persistence" mode that keeps the model on-task through failures and dead ends rather than surfacing errors to the user. The model was trained entirely on Huawei Ascend 910B chips using the MindSpore framework — no US silicon, no CUDA. The geopolitical dimension is as significant as the technical one: GLM-5.1 is direct evidence that US export controls on Nvidia hardware have not meaningfully slowed China's frontier model development. The 8-hour autonomous execution window is also a step-change from current agentic systems that struggle past 20-30 minutes of coherent work — if this benchmark holds up in real-world testing, it's a genuine advancement in the class of problems AI agents can independently solve.
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 8-hour autonomous execution claim is real and not cherry-picked, this changes the calculus for using AI on genuinely hard engineering problems. SWE-Bench Pro #1 is also a credible metric — I want to test this on my own repos immediately.”
“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.”
“SWE-Bench benchmarks have historically shown poor correlation with real-world coding productivity, and the '8-hour autonomous' claim needs independent validation. Z.AI is also a relatively unknown quantity compared to Anthropic or Google — API reliability and pricing are completely unproven.”
“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.”
“The strategic significance of a Chinese lab hitting #1 on the coding benchmark using zero US hardware cannot be overstated. The export control strategy is officially not working as intended, and GLM-5.1 will accelerate the geopolitical AI arms race in ways that reshape the entire industry.”
“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.”
“For creative work, I need a model with strong multimodal capabilities and reliable API access — both unproven for GLM-5.1. The coding benchmark lead is impressive but not directly relevant to my workflows. I'll wait for independent reviews before switching.”
Weekly AI Tool Verdicts
Get the next comparison in your inbox
New AI tools ship daily. We compare them before you waste an afternoon.