Pick Claude Opus 4.7 for long-running agentic coding workflows or precise instruction following. Pick GLM 5.1 for long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs) or state-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped swe-bench pro at launch). Choose GLM 5.1 if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Claude Opus 4.7 if you want a managed API.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Anthropic, US) and GLM 5.1 (Z.ai, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Claude Opus 4.7 is the agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. GLM 5.1 is an open-weight (MIT) Chinese coding model built for long-horizon agentic engineering, topping SWE-Bench Pro at launch while running autonomously for up to 8 hours. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Price: GLM 5.1 is about 3.6× cheaper on input ($1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens vs $5/$25 per 1M tokens) — meaningful once you are processing millions of tokens a month.
Context window: Claude Opus 4.7 holds 5× more — 1M (~1,500 pages) vs 200K (~300 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Specifications
Spec
Claude Opus 4.7
GLM 5.1
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Z.ai (China)
Released
April 16, 2026
April 7, 2026
Context window
1M (~1,500 pages)
200K (~300 pages)
Price (in/out)
$5/$25 per 1M tokens
$1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, image, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
87.6%
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Long-running agentic coding workflows: Claude Opus 4.7 — A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.
Precise instruction following: Claude Opus 4.7 — A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.
Task budgets and effort tiers: Claude Opus 4.7 — A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.
Long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs): GLM 5.1 — A core design strength of GLM 5.1.
State-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped SWE-Bench Pro at launch): GLM 5.1 — A core design strength of GLM 5.1.
Sustained tool use across thousands of calls: GLM 5.1 — A core design strength of GLM 5.1.
Lowest cost at scale: GLM 5.1 — At $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input: Claude Opus 4.7 — Its 1M window is about 5× larger, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: GLM 5.1 — At $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Opus 4.7, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Claude Opus 4.7 — Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: GLM 5.1 — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Claude Opus 4.7 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is long-running agentic coding workflows: Claude Opus 4.7 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs): GLM 5.1 — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: Claude Opus 4.7 or GLM 5.1 — Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Claude Opus 4.7: where it fits
The agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. Released April 16, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for long-running agentic coding workflows, precise instruction following, task budgets and effort tiers, and large-codebase operation.
Its trade-offs are real: long-context recall regressed vs 4.6, and superseded by Opus 4.8. At $5 in / $25 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.
GLM 5.1: where it fits
An open-weight (MIT) Chinese coding model built for long-horizon agentic engineering, topping SWE-Bench Pro at launch while running autonomously for up to 8 hours. Released April 7, 2026 by Z.ai, it is built for long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs), state-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped SWE-Bench Pro at launch), sustained tool use across thousands of calls, and self-hostable under a permissive MIT license.
Its trade-offs: text-only, with no image, audio, or video input, and 754B-parameter MoE demands heavy GPU resources to self-host. At $1.4 in / $4.4 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. GLM 5.1 gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Claude Opus 4.7 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or GLM 5.1 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for GLM 5.1, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 4.7 leans toward long-running agentic coding workflows while GLM 5.1 leans toward long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or GLM 5.1?
GLM 5.1 is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Claude Opus 4.7 is API-metered at $5/$25 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.7 — 1M vs 200K, about 5× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Claude Opus 4.7 and GLM 5.1 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Opus 4.7, GLM 5.1 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Opus 4.7 or GLM 5.1?
Claude Opus 4.7 — released April 16, 2026, about 9 days after GLM 5.1.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs GLM 5.1
Anthropic · US | Z.ai · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 for long-running agentic coding workflows or precise instruction following. Pick GLM 5.1 for long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs) or state-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped swe-bench pro at launch). Choose GLM 5.1 if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Claude Opus 4.7 if you want a managed API.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Anthropic, US) and GLM 5.1 (Z.ai, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Claude Opus 4.7 is the agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. GLM 5.1 is an open-weight (MIT) Chinese coding model built for long-horizon agentic engineering, topping SWE-Bench Pro at launch while running autonomously for up to 8 hours. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: GLM 5.1 is about 3.6× cheaper on input ($1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens vs $5/$25 per 1M tokens) — meaningful once you are processing millions of tokens a month.
▸Context window: Claude Opus 4.7 holds 5× more — 1M (~1,500 pages) vs 200K (~300 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Claude Opus 4.7
GLM 5.1
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Z.ai (China)
Released
April 16, 2026
April 7, 2026
Context window
1M (~1,500 pages)
200K (~300 pages)
Price (in/out)
$5/$25 per 1M tokens
$1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, image, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
87.6%
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Long-running agentic coding workflows
Claude Opus 4.7
A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.
Precise instruction following
Claude Opus 4.7
A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.
Task budgets and effort tiers
Claude Opus 4.7
A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.
Long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs)
GLM 5.1
A core design strength of GLM 5.1.
State-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped SWE-Bench Pro at launch)
GLM 5.1
A core design strength of GLM 5.1.
Sustained tool use across thousands of calls
GLM 5.1
A core design strength of GLM 5.1.
Lowest cost at scale
GLM 5.1
At $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input
Claude Opus 4.7
Its 1M window is about 5× larger, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ GLM 5.1
At $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Opus 4.7, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Claude Opus 4.7
Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ GLM 5.1
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Claude Opus 4.7 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is long-running agentic coding workflows
→ Claude Opus 4.7
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs)
→ GLM 5.1
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Claude Opus 4.7 or GLM 5.1
Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Claude Opus 4.7: where it fits
The agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. Released April 16, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for long-running agentic coding workflows, precise instruction following, task budgets and effort tiers, and large-codebase operation.
Its trade-offs are real: long-context recall regressed vs 4.6, and superseded by Opus 4.8. At $5 in / $25 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.
GLM 5.1: where it fits
An open-weight (MIT) Chinese coding model built for long-horizon agentic engineering, topping SWE-Bench Pro at launch while running autonomously for up to 8 hours. Released April 7, 2026 by Z.ai, it is built for long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs), state-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped SWE-Bench Pro at launch), sustained tool use across thousands of calls, and self-hostable under a permissive MIT license.
Its trade-offs: text-only, with no image, audio, or video input, and 754B-parameter MoE demands heavy GPU resources to self-host. At $1.4 in / $4.4 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. GLM 5.1 gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Claude Opus 4.7 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Claude Opus 4.7 and GLM 5.1 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for GLM 5.1, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 4.7 leans toward long-running agentic coding workflows while GLM 5.1 leans toward long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or GLM 5.1?
GLM 5.1 is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Claude Opus 4.7 is API-metered at $5/$25 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.7 — 1M vs 200K, about 5× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Claude Opus 4.7 and GLM 5.1 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Opus 4.7, GLM 5.1 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Opus 4.7 or GLM 5.1?
Claude Opus 4.7 — released April 16, 2026, about 9 days after GLM 5.1.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.