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
Zhipu AI's 744B MIT-licensed model that beats Claude and GPT on SWE-Bench
50%
Panel ship
—
Community
Paid
Entry
GLM-5.1 is Zhipu AI's latest open-weights language model — a 744B parameter mixture-of-experts (MoE) architecture that activates 40B parameters per forward pass. Released under the MIT license with a 200,000-token context window, it has quietly topped the SWE-Bench Pro leaderboard, surpassing both Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 on expert-level software engineering tasks. The MoE architecture means GLM-5.1 is significantly cheaper to run per token than a dense 744B model, with inference costs approaching dense 40B models for most workloads. Zhipu AI (a Tsinghua University spin-out) has steadily iterated on the GLM family to produce a text-focused reasoning model that holds its own against proprietary frontier models — now, for the first time, reportedly exceeding them on coding benchmarks. The MIT license is the headline for enterprise and research users: full commercial use, no usage restrictions, no API dependency. This puts GLM-5.1 in direct competition with Qwen3.5 for the "best open-weights model you can actually use for anything" crown, with a differentiating edge in software engineering tasks specifically.
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.”
“SWE-Bench Pro beating Claude and GPT-5.4 is the real signal here. For coding automation workflows, having an MIT-licensed 200K context model at that quality tier changes the build-vs-buy calculus significantly. Deploying this on dedicated hardware is now a serious option for engineering teams.”
“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.”
“744B total parameters still requires serious infrastructure — you're looking at 8x H100s at minimum for comfortable inference. The 40B active parameters help with cost but not with deployment complexity. This is 'open source' for well-funded teams, not indie builders.”
“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 open-weights ecosystem has now fully caught up to proprietary models on the most demanding software engineering benchmarks. This is the moment the 'open vs closed' debate definitively changes — the argument that proprietary models are categorically better no longer holds.”
“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 a creative tech team with serious infrastructure, this isn't practical for most creative workflows. The quality is undeniably impressive but the deployment story doesn't fit solo creators or small studios.”
Weekly AI Tool Verdicts
Get the next comparison in your inbox
New AI tools ship daily. We compare them before you waste an afternoon.