Data points: 56
The readout for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash, before the detailed comparison sheet.
Decision read
Tie
Tie currently has the stronger profile, with verified wins split 3 to 3.
Evidence depth
56 data points
Includes 0 benchmark rows, 0 audit samples, and 7 provider examples.
Selection signal
Tie
The charts below split 7 high-signal samples across speed, scores, and audit health.
Model compare Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-4.1v Thinking Flashclaude-opus-4-6-vs-glm-4-1v-thinking-flash | Model A Claude Opus 4.6 | Model B GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Overall leader | Tie | Tie |
| Verified metric wins | 3 wins | 3 wins |
| Where it leads | First-token latency, Free providers, Provider coverage | Cheapest input price, Average speed, Recent tests |
| Model metadata | Claude Opus 4.6 exposes 1M tokens; notable signals: Text input, Image input, File input, Text output. | No OpenRouter metadata is available yet for this model. |
| Developer | Anthropic | Zhipu AI |
| Context window | 1M tokens | No data |
| Max output | 128K tokens | No data |
| Released | Apr 2026 | No data |
| Modalities | Input TextImageFile Output Text | No data |
| Features | Text inputImage inputFile inputText outputTool callingStructured outputsJSON modeReasoning | None listed |
| Parameters | No data | No data |
| Tokenizer | Claude | No data |
| Knowledge cutoff | No data | No data |
| OpenRouter ID | anthropic/claude-opus-4.6-fast | No data |
| References | No data | No data |
Third-party benchmark profile synced into LMSpeed; only metrics available for both models are shown.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash |
|---|---|---|
| No shared benchmark metrics are available yet. | ||
Latest completed audits from shared providers, with four safety and integrity score groups plus report links.
| Provider | Claude Opus 4.6 | GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash |
|---|---|---|
| No completed audits are available from shared providers yet. | ||
Speed aggregates and input/output pricing share each provider row for real API selection and migration cost checks.
| Provider | Claude Opus 4.6 | GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash |
|---|---|---|
素墨API5 tests | Claude Opus 4.6 speed / latency 47 tok/s / 2344ms input / output No data | GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data |
6345ywz API0 tests | Claude Opus 4.6 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data |
DMXAPI0 tests | Claude Opus 4.6 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data |
KFCV500 tests | Claude Opus 4.6 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data |
Newagiai0 tests | Claude Opus 4.6 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data |
Claude Opus 4.6 claude-opus-4.6 speed / latency No data input / output $0/M / $0/M | GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash ZhipuAI/GLM-4.1V-Thinking-Flash speed / latency No data input / output $75.00/M / $75.00/M | |
Claude Opus 4.6 claude-opus-4-6-medium speed / latency No data input / output $2.45/M / $12.24/M | GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash glm-4.1v-thinking-flash speed / latency No data input / output $0.098/M / $0.098/M |
This report only uses LMSpeed data for Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash: pricing, speed aggregates, third-party benchmark scores, and shared provider samples.
| Guidance | Claude Opus 4.6 | GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash |
|---|---|---|
| When to choose each model | Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Opus 4.6 is stronger when you prioritize First-token latency, Free providers, Provider coverage. | GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash is stronger when you prioritize Cheapest input price, Average speed, Recent tests. |
TL;DR: Tie leads across 56 verifiable data points, including pricing, speed, latency, benchmarks, and provider examples.
Continue from Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-4.1v Thinking Flash into nearby model comparisons with enough verified LMSpeed data.
Rankings are based on community-submitted tests and periodic health probes. Advisory only, not official data.
