新人 免费注册,送 10 次调用,最高 $1,无需绑卡。

Claude Opus 5 vs GLM-5.1

vs

什么时候选哪个

需要在文本之外接受图像输入、1000000 token 上下文窗口,或它明确的思考能力时选 claude-opus-5;它的输入费率约为 glm-5.1 的 3.6 倍、输出约为 5.7 倍(每百万 $5/$25 对 $1.4/$4.4)。适合放进 200000 token 的纯文本工作选 glm-5.1,那里更低的价目表和 $0.26 的缓存读取比图像支持或更大窗口更重要。两者都暴露对话、代码、工具和推理,都允许关闭思考,最大输出规模相近(128000 对 131072)。

Benchmark 成绩

GLM-5.1:供应商没有公布 benchmark 成绩。

高于同类均值无更高分Claude Opus 538 / 468 / 46
Claude Opus 5 GLM-5.1 其他参测模型 同类均值 ★ 没有模型得分更高
DeepSWE 1.1
68.8%
N/A
BioMysteryBench hard
49.4%
N/A
OSWorld 2.0
没有模型得分更高 70.6%
N/A
ExploitBench (Cap%)
70%
N/A
HealthBench Professional
59.8%
N/A
Finance Agent v2
58.6%
N/A
Legal Agent Benchmark
6.7%
N/A
GPQA Diamond
93.4%
N/A
BrowseComp
90.8%
N/A
LVBench
75.4%
N/A

供应商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

价格

Claude Opus 5 GLM-5.1 Δ
输入 / 1M token $5 $1.4 3.6×
输出 / 1M token $25 $4.4 5.7×
缓存读取 / 1M token $0.5 $0.26 1.9×
缓存写入 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) - -

价格取自构建时的实时目录,最新价格见各模型页面。

两个模型所处的位置:全部 76 个按同一单位计费的聊天模型的每 1M token 输入价分布(对数刻度)

Claude Opus 5 · $5 GLM-5.1 · $1.4
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

能力

Claude Opus 5 GLM-5.1
工具调用 是 是
思考控制 可配置 可配置
结构化输出 是 是
提示词缓存 显式(由你标记前缀) 隐式(自动)
缓存有效期 5m default, 1h option 未公布
最小缓存前缀 1024 个 token 未公布

规格

Claude Opus 5 GLM-5.1
输入模态 文本 图像 文本
输出模态 文本 文本
发布日期 2026-07-24 2026-04-07
知识截止日期 2026-05 -
上下文窗口 1M 200K
最大输出 128K 131K
思考参数
  • thinking.type
  • output_config.effort
thinking.type
可选值
thinking.type
  • adaptive
  • disabled
effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled
默认值

thinking on

effort
  • high (Claude API and Claude Code)
enabled, and the model automatically determines whether to think

规格照录自各供应商的文档;供应商没有公布的项目,对应的行直接省略,不做推断。 完整来源: Claude Opus 5 · GLM-5.1

同一条提示词,两个模型,经网关实测

提示词 Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. 检查 恰好 3 句

Claude Opus 5 通过 · 3 sentences

When reasoning is enabled, the model generates a hidden chain of "thinking" tokens before it writes the visible answer, and those internal tokens are billed at the output rate even though no one ever sees them — commonly 3–10x more tokens than the response itself. Because output tokens are priced several times higher than input tokens, that added volume hits us at our most expensive rate, which is why the bill roughly doubled while our request count stayed flat. The spend is controllable: we can cap the reasoning budget per call, route only genuinely hard requests to reasoning mode and cheaper models for the rest, and track cost per successfully completed task rather than cost per token, since a single correct answer usually beats three cheap retries plus human cleanup.

输出 529 tok 延迟 9.0 s

GLM-5.1 通过 · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning shifts the LLM from generating quick answers to producing hidden "chain-of-thought" tokens that systematically explore multiple solution paths before responding. Because billing is based on total tokens processed, these invisible reasoning tokens drastically increase input and output volume per query, often adding thousands of compute-intensive tokens to a single prompt. Consequently, our bill doubled not from higher per-token rates or increased user volume, but from the exponentially deeper computational work required to deliver higher-quality, more reliable outputs.

输出 98 tok 延迟 7.8 s

指令遵循(恰好三句,数得出来)、受众适配(对 CFO 说话的口吻),以及下方 token 计数暴露出的隐藏思考计费差额。

提示词 This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. 检查 修复通过测试

Claude Opus 5 通过 · 8/8 cases

## Fixed version ```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 else: cur = 1 if cur > best: best = cur return best ``` ## The bug The counters were tracking the wrong quantity: `cur` counted *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *elements in the current run*, and both counters started at `0` instead of `1`. Since a run of length *n* contains only *n − 1* adjacent equal pairs, every result came back one too small — `[1, 1]` returned 1, `[3, 3, 3]` returned 2 — and a single-element list returned 0 because the loop body never executed and `best` kept its initial value of `0`. […]

输出 1094 tok 延迟 16.1 s

GLM-5.1 通过 · 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 function initialized `cur` and `best` to `0` and only incremented `cur` when a duplicate was found. This counts the number of *extra* equal items in a run rather than the total run length, so every run is reported as one shorter than it actually is—returning `0` for single-element lists and `L-1` for a run of length `L` (including those ending at the last index). The fix initializes `cur` and `best` to `1` (when the list is non‑empty) and resets `cur` to `1` on a mismatch, so `cur` tracks the full length of the current run and `best` records the true maximum.

输出 3823 tok (+3585 思考) 延迟 49.7 s

修复是否真的正确(能运行)、解释的信息密度,以及在一个范围明确的任务上的 token 效率。

提示词 Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. 检查 合法 JSON,严格符合 schema

Claude Opus 5 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending Q4 close"

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending Q4 close" } ``` Notes on judgment calls: - **quarter**: "September quarter" is labeled Q3 because the text refers to an upcoming "Q4 close," implying a calendar-aligned fiscal year. No fiscal year is given. - **revenue_usd_m**: 412 is stated as constant-currency and hedged ("call it"), so it's approximate; the currency is not explicitly stated as USD. - **growth_pct**: "up eleven and change" means slightly more than 11, so 11 is a floor rather than an exact figure.

输出 539 tok 延迟 7.6 s

GLM-5.1 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" } ```

输出 1091 tok (+1028 思考) 延迟 15.2 s

是否严守 schema(不臆造字段)、能否顶住幻觉压力(原文明说暂不给出 guidance),以及结构化输出路径的差异。

提示词 Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. 检查 120 词,0 个禁用词

Claude Opus 5 通过 · 123 words, 0 banned, 1 question

**Cross-Provider Prompt Caching** We're introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching in the API Gateway. Repeated system prompts, long documents, and few-shot examples are stored once at the gateway layer and reused across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and self-hosted models. Instead of paying full input token costs on every request, your application sends a cache reference, and the gateway rehydrates the context before forwarding it downstream. Why does that matter? Teams running high-volume agents and retrieval pipelines typically see input token spend fall 40 to 70 percent, with median latency dropping by several hundred milliseconds. Caches are scoped per project, encrypted at rest, and invalidated automatically when a prompt template changes. Enable it with a single header, and see the docs for TTL tuning and per-route controls.

输出 1593 tok 延迟 19.1 s

GLM-5.1 通过 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

We are excited to introduce Prompt Cache for our API Gateway. This new feature stores responses for identical prompts, routing subsequent requests directly to the cache instead of calling the underlying AI provider. Are you tired of paying multiple times for the exact same query? Prompt Cache solves this by recognizing duplicate inputs across all supported providers, drastically reducing latency and operational costs. When a user submits a request that matches a previously cached prompt, the gateway returns the stored answer instantly. You can configure cache expiration and scope rules via your dashboard to maintain data freshness. Stop wasting budget on redundant computational work. Upgrade to the latest gateway tier today to start saving time and money on every call.

输出 3935 tok (+3802 思考) 延迟 41.1 s

是否守住约束(字数预算、禁用词表、只能有一个问句)、文风特征,以及长度控制。

改一行代码就能在两个模型之间切换

下方每个标签页里都有两个模型 ID,高亮的那两行是唯一要改的地方。端点不变,API key 不变,请求结构也不变。

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",
    # model="glm-5.1",  # 取消注释此行,注释上一行
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

获取 API key →

常见问题

Claude Opus 5 和 GLM-5.1 哪个更便宜?

按「输入 / 1M token」算,GLM-5.1 更便宜($1.4 对 $5,相差 3.6×)。其他计费项的结论可能相反,完整价格见上方表格,实际成本取决于你的用量构成。

不用分别集成两次,就能对 Claude Opus 5 和 GLM-5.1 做 A/B 测试吗?

可以。两个模型走同一个 OpenAI 兼容端点,用同一个 API key,切换时只要改一行里的模型名,所以可以给两个模型各分一部分流量,直接对比账单。

Claude Opus 5 和 GLM-5.1 支持提示词缓存吗?

支持。两个模型的缓存读取价都低于各自的输入价,所以前缀能反复命中缓存的负载,实际成本会比按官网价估算的低。具体的缓存读取价见上方价格表。

相关对比

我们的实测研究