Claude Sonnet 5 vs GLM-5.1
何时使用哪一个 — 经过整理的结论，而非基准测试表格
当任务需要在文本之外接受图像输入、1000000 token 上下文，或它明确的思考模式时选 claude-sonnet-5；它的缓存读取也更便宜，每百万 $0.2 对 $0.26。适合放进 200000 token 的纯文本工作选 glm-5.1，它 $1.4 的输入和 $4.4 的输出低于 Sonnet 的 $2 和 $10——输出 token 上便宜约 2.3 倍——最大输出略大，为 131072 token。两者按相同的每百万 token 单位计费，都做代码、工具和推理，也都可以关闭思考，所以差别其实是上下文与模态对输出成本的取舍。
定价
| Claude Sonnet 5 | GLM-5.1 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 输入 / 1M tokens | $2 | $1.4 | 1.4× |
| 输出 / 1M tokens | $10 | $4.4 | 2.3× |
| 缓存读取 / 1M tokens | $0.2 | $0.26 | 0.77× |
| 缓存写入 | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | — | — |
费率取自构建时的实时目录；每个模型页面均附有当前的费率卡。
它们的位置 — 以该计费单位计费的所有 63 个 聊天 模型的 每 1M token 的输入价格（对数刻度）
能力
| Claude Sonnet 5 | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 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（由您标记前缀） | 隐式（自动） |
| 缓存生存时间 | 5m default, 1h option | 未公开 |
| 最小缓存前缀 | 1024 个 token | 未公开 |
规格
| Claude Sonnet 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 | 2026-06-30 | 2026-04-07 |
| 知识截止日期 | 2026-01 | — |
| 上下文窗口 | 1M | 200K |
| 最大输出 | 128K | 131K |
| 思考参数 |
| thinking.type |
| 允许的值 | thinking.type
effort
"enabled" returns 400 | thinking.type
|
| 默认值 | thinking on (adaptive) effort
| enabled, and the model automatically determines whether to think |
规格转录自各供应商的文档；若供应商未发布某项数据，则直接省略该行，而非进行推断。 完整来源： Claude Sonnet 5 · GLM-5.1
单个 Prompt，两个模型 —— 通过网关实测
Claude Sonnet 5 通过 · 3 sentences
Reasoning mode works by having the model generate extended internal "thinking" steps before producing its final answer, and since we're billed on total tokens, that hidden reasoning text adds significantly to what we pay for—even though you never see it in the output. This is different from simply getting longer visible responses; the model is essentially "showing its work" behind the scenes, and complex prompts can trigger thousands of extra reasoning tokens per request. The upside is improved accuracy on complex tasks, but if we want to control costs, we should selectively enable reasoning only for queries that truly need it, rather than applying it universally.
输出 194 tok 延迟 4.3 s
GLM-5.1 通过 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning requires the LLM to generate thousands of invisible "thinking" tokens to work through complex logic before producing the final answer. Because we are billed on total token volume, these intermediate steps are charged at the premium output rate, drastically increasing the variable cost per query. The invoice doubled simply because the model is now doing roughly twice the computational work per request, trading higher variable compute costs for significantly improved analytical accuracy.
输出 913 tok (+827 思考) 延迟 10.9 s
指令遵循（恰好三句，可数）、受众适配（面向 CFO 的语气），以及下方 token 计量所暴露的隐藏思考计费缺口。
Claude Sonnet 5 通过 · 8/8 cases
## The Bug The function has two related off-by-one issues rooted in the same cause: `cur` and `best` are initialized to `0` instead of `1`, treating run lengths as the number of *matches* between adjacent elements rather than the number of *elements* in the run. This means a single-element input never enters the loop (since `range(1, 1)` is empty) and returns `0` instead of the correct answer of `1`. It also means that for any input, the run length is undercounted by exactly one — a run of 3 equal elements only produces 2 "match" increments, so `best` ends up as 2 instead of 3. The claim that it "misses runs that end at the last index" is actually a symptom of this same undercount: the logic does update `best` correctly on every iteration (including the last), but because it's counting matches instead of elements, the final reported value is always one less than the true longest run. […]
输出 536 tok 延迟 7.1 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 ``` The original function tracks the number of adjacent equal pairs rather than the actual run length. By initializing `cur` and `best` to 0 and incrementing `cur` only when a match occurs, a run of length L produces a count of L−1. This causes single‑element inputs to return 0 (since the loop never runs) and generally returns a value one less than the true run length, effectively omitting the final element of any run—including those that end at the last index. […]
输出 2642 tok (+2414 思考) 延迟 26.1 s
修复是否真的正确（可运行）、解释的信息密度，以及在一个边界明确的任务上的 token 效率。
Claude Sonnet 5 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11.5, "guidance": null } ```
输出 348 tok 延迟 5.3 s
GLM-5.1 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": null } ```
输出 1465 tok (+1410 思考) 延迟 16.1 s
schema 服从度（不臆造字段）、幻觉压力（guidance 明确被暂缓给出），以及结构化输出路径的差异。
Claude Sonnet 5 通过 · 123 words, 0 banned, 1 question
## Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching We're rolling out a new caching layer for our API gateway that works across every major LLM provider you connect through it. Instead of resending identical prompts and paying full price each time, the gateway recognizes repeated requests and serves cached responses in milliseconds—regardless of whether you're routing to OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google. What does this mean for your bill and your latency? Both drop, often significantly, especially for teams running high-volume, repetitive workloads like customer support bots or batch content generation. The cache is configurable per route, with adjustable TTLs and invalidation rules, so you stay in control of freshness versus cost. Available now for all Pro and Enterprise plans. Check your dashboard to enable it today.
输出 259 tok 延迟 4.8 s
GLM-5.1 通过 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We are thrilled to introduce prompt caching across providers in the API gateway. Why pay twice for the same prompt context? Now, when your application sends identical prompt prefixes to different LLM providers, our gateway automatically caches the input, reducing latency and cutting costs. This feature intelligently recognizes repeated prompt structures across OpenAI, Anthropic, and others, storing them efficiently at the network edge. Developers no longer need to manage separate caching logic for each individual provider. Instead, our unified system handles it directly, ensuring faster response times on all subsequent requests. Stop wasting valuable tokens on redundant processing workloads. Upgrade your integration today and experience immediate performance gains while keeping your infrastructure simple and your overall monthly billing incredibly low.
输出 7589 tok (+7447 思考) 延迟 188.9 s
约束服从度（字数预算、禁用词表、唯一的那句问句）、文风指纹，以及长度控制。
只需一行代码即可在它们之间切换
两个 ID 都包含在下方的每个选项卡中 — 高亮显示的两行是唯一的修改。相同的端点，相同的密钥，相同的请求结构。
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="claude-sonnet-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)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-sonnet-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",
});
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-sonnet-5",
# "model": "glm-5.1", # 取消注释此行，注释上一行
"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-sonnet-5",
// Model: "glm-5.1", // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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-sonnet-5")
// .model("glm-5.1") // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常见问题
Claude Sonnet 5 和 GLM-5.1 哪个更便宜？
在 输入 / 1m tokens 方面，GLM-5.1 更便宜（$1.4 对比 $2，相差 1.4×）。其他行可能得出相反的结论——上方表格提供了完整信息，实际成本取决于你的组合使用情况。
我可以在不进行两次集成的情况下，对 Claude Sonnet 5 和 GLM-5.1 进行 A/B 测试吗？
可以。两者均通过同一个兼容 OpenAI 的端点提供服务，并使用同一把 API 密钥——切换只需更改一行模型字符串，因此你可以将一部分流量路由到各个模型并直接比较账单。
Claude Sonnet 5 和 GLM-5.1 支持提示词缓存吗？
是的 —— 两者对缓存读取的计费均低于其输入费率，因此热前缀工作负载的成本低于标价。准确的缓存读取行位于上方的定价表中。