Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM-5.3
Quale scegliere e quando
Entrambi condividono una finestra di contesto di 1,000,000 di token e offrono chat, codice, strumenti e ragionamento con il thinking sempre attivo, quindi la differenza è principalmente nel prezzo e negli input: claude-opus-5-5 costa $4 in input e $20 in output per milione, circa 2.9x e 4.5x rispetto ai $1.4 e $4.4 di glm-5.3. Scegli claude-opus-5-5 quando hai bisogno di immagini in input oltre al testo, o per le sue letture dalla cache più economiche a $0.2 contro i $0.28 di glm-5.3 per i prompt fortemente memorizzati nella cache. Scegli glm-5.3 per lavori ad alto volume, solo testo e a contesto lungo, dove le tariffe per token inferiori e il suo output massimo di 131072 token sono sufficienti.
Benchmark
Dati pubblicati dai fornitori: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Prezzi
| Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5.3 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M token | $4 | $1.4 | 2.9× |
| Output / 1M token | $20 | $4.4 | 4.5× |
| Lettura cache / 1M token | $0.2 | $0.28 | 0.71× |
| Scrittura in cache | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | - | - |
Le tariffe provengono dal catalogo live al momento della build; la pagina di ciascun modello riporta la scheda attuale.
Dove si posizionano - prezzo di input per 1M di token rispetto a tutti gli 74 modelli chat con questa unità di fatturazione (scala logaritmica)
Capacità
| Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5.3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Utilizzo dei tool | sì | sì |
| Controllo del ragionamento | sempre attivo | sempre attivo |
| Output strutturato | sì | sì |
| Prompt caching | esplicito (contrassegni il prefisso) | implicito (automatico) |
| Durata della cache | 5m default, 1h option | non pubblicato |
| Prefisso minimo in cache | 1024 token | non pubblicato |
Specifiche
| Claude Opus 5.5 | GLM-5.3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Modalità di input | testo immagine | testo |
| Modalità di output | testo | testo |
| Rilascio | 2026-09-22 | - |
| Cutoff di conoscenza | 2026-06 | - |
| Finestra di contesto | 1M | 1M |
| Output massimo | 128K | 131K |
| Parametro thinking | output_config.effort | reasoning_effort |
| Valori accettati | output_config.effort
| reasoning_effort
|
| Predefinito | medium | max |
Le specifiche sono trascritte dalla documentazione di ciascun fornitore; una riga che un fornitore non pubblica viene omessa anziché essere dedotta. Fonti complete: Claude Opus 5.5 · GLM-5.3
Un solo prompt, entrambi i modelli - misurati attraverso il gateway
Claude Opus 5.5 superato · 3 sentences
When we turned on reasoning, the model began "thinking out loud" before each answer, generating thousands of internal working tokens that users never see but that we are billed for just like the final response. Those hidden tokens are charged at the output rate, typically the most expensive rate, so the same question with the same visible answer now costs roughly twice as much or more. We can bring the bill back down without losing the quality gains by capping the reasoning budget and reserving reasoning mode for the complex tasks that actually benefit from it.
out 263 tok (+102 ragionamento) latenza 5.7 s
GLM-5.3 superato · 3 sentences
When we enabled reasoning, the model began generating an extensive internal chain-of-thought—thousands of hidden "thinking" tokens the user never sees—before writing any part of the actual answer. Those invisible tokens are billed at output rates, which run several times the price of input tokens, so the billed volume per query jumped even though query volume and per-token pricing stayed the same. The good news is this is a controllable lever, not a rate increase: capping reasoning effort and routing only complex queries to reasoning mode should bring a large share of the added cost back down.
out 681 tok (+562 ragionamento) latenza 18.4 s
Rispetto dell'istruzione (esattamente tre frasi - contabili), adattamento al pubblico (registro da CFO), e il divario di fatturazione del pensiero nascosto che i contatori di token qui sotto rivelano.
Claude Opus 5.5 superato · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **Explanation:** The original code counted *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *items in a run*. Both `cur` and `best` started at 0, and `cur` reset to 0 on a mismatch, so a run of length *n* was reported as *n − 1*. For a single-element list the loop never executes, so it returned 0 instead of 1. For `[5, 5]` it returned 1 instead of 2. The fix treats every element as the start of a run of length 1: `best` and `cur` start at 1, and `cur` resets to 1 (not 0) when the value changes. An explicit check returns 0 for an empty list. The "misses runs at the last index" reports are the same off-by-one bug rather than a separate one. […]
out 723 tok (+303 ragionamento) latenza 10.4 s
GLM-5.3 superato · 8/8 cases
**Fixed:** ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **The bug:** The function suffers from a unit error — it counts adjacent equal *pairs* rather than *items* in a run. `cur` is seeded at 0, gains 1 per match, and resets to 0 on a mismatch, so a run of k equal elements can only ever drive `cur` to k−1 (a run of k items contains exactly k−1 neighboring pairs), and `best`, also starting at 0, inherits that shortfall. That's why a single-element input — a run of length 1 containing zero pairs — returns 0 instead of 1, and why a run reaching the last index comes back one short (e.g. […]
out 9934 tok (+9438 ragionamento) latenza 150.7 s
Se la correzione è davvero giusta (eseguibile), la densità della spiegazione, e l'efficienza in token su un compito delimitato.
Claude Opus 5.5 superato · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending Q4 close" } ``` **Judgment calls to check:** - **quarter**: Kept as "September quarter" rather than "Q3", since the fiscal calendar isn't stated. The text mentions an upcoming "Q4 close," so it may be fiscal Q3, but that's not certain. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text says only "412 for the topline." It doesn't state currency or units, and the figure is on a constant-currency basis, not reported USD. USD millions is an assumption. Use `null` if you need strictly stated values. - **growth_pct**: The source says "eleven and change," so the true figure is slightly above 11. 11 is an approximation. - **guidance**: Guidance was explicitly withheld. I recorded that rather than `null`, since the text addresses it directly.
out 829 tok (+488 ragionamento) latenza 10.9 s
GLM-5.3 superato · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on interpretation: - **revenue_usd_m**: 412 is the stated topline, though it's on a constant-currency basis. - **growth_pct**: "eleven and change" is extracted as 11 (an approximation, slightly above 11). - **guidance**: null, since formal guidance was explicitly withheld pending the Q4 close.
out 2173 tok (+2045 ragionamento) latenza 35.8 s
Aderenza allo schema (nessun campo inventato), pressione di allucinazione (guidance è esplicitamente sospesa), e differenze nel percorso di output strutturato.
Claude Opus 5.5 superato · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today we're launching Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for our API gateway. Why pay twice for the same context? Our gateway now stores repeated prompt prefixes, system instructions, and document chunks, then reuses them whether your request goes to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or an open-source model. Teams running retrieval pipelines or long agent loops can cut token costs by up to 60 percent and trim latency on every cached call. Setup takes one configuration flag; no code changes are required. Cache rules respect tenant boundaries, expire on your schedule, and log every hit for audit review. Dashboards show savings by provider, route, and application in real time. Cross-Provider Prompt Caching is available on all Pro and Enterprise plans. Turn it on today.
out 1263 tok (+1007 ragionamento) latenza 13.5 s
GLM-5.3 superato · 129 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Universal Prompt Caching** We're thrilled to announce prompt caching that works across every major LLM provider. Identical prompts are now cached once at the gateway level, regardless of which model or vendor serves the request downstream. That means up to 90% savings on token costs and dramatically faster responses for repeated queries. How does it work? Our gateway computes a deterministic hash of each incoming prompt, checks the shared cache layer, and returns instant responses when matches exist. New or modified prompts route normally to your configured provider. Deploy with a single configuration flag; no code changes required. Cache invalidation, TTL controls, and detailed analytics are included. Stop paying twice for the same question. Enable Universal Prompt Caching today. --- *Exactly 120 words; one question; no forbidden terms.*
out 5418 tok (+5255 ragionamento) latenza 52.4 s
Rispetto dei vincoli (budget di parole, elenco di parole vietate, l'unica domanda), impronta stilistica, e controllo della lunghezza.
Passa dall'uno all'altro con una sola riga
Entrambi gli id sono presenti in ogni scheda qui sotto - la coppia di righe evidenziata è l'unica modifica. Stesso endpoint, stessa chiave, stessa struttura della richiesta.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="claude-opus-5-5",
# model="glm-5.3", # decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "claude-opus-5-5",
// model: "glm-5.3", // decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "claude-opus-5-5",
# "model": "glm-5.3", # decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "claude-opus-5-5",
// Model: "glm-5.3", // decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("claude-opus-5-5")
// .model("glm-5.3") // decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Qual è più economico, Claude Opus 5.5 o GLM-5.3?
GLM-5.3 è più economico per input / 1m token ($1.4 contro $4, 2.9× di differenza). Altre righe potrebbero indicare il contrario - la tabella sopra riporta la scheda completa, e il costo reale dipende dal tuo mix.
Posso fare un A/B test di Claude Opus 5.5 contro GLM-5.3 senza due integrazioni?
Sì. Entrambi sono serviti tramite lo stesso endpoint compatibile con OpenAI con una singola chiave API - il passaggio richiede la modifica della stringa del modello in una sola riga, quindi puoi instradare una frazione del traffico verso ciascuno e confrontare direttamente le fatture.
Claude Opus 5.5 e GLM-5.3 supportano il prompt caching?
Sì - entrambi fatturano le letture in cache a un prezzo inferiore rispetto alla loro tariffa di input, quindi i carichi di lavoro con warm-prefix costano meno di quanto suggeriscano le tariffe di listino. Le righe esatte per la lettura in cache si trovano nella tabella dei prezzi qui sopra.