GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0: The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0 Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Claude 2.0 remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0 comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)

Other

Reasoning: 9
Coding: 2
Multimodal: 2
Long Context: 3
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.000
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 74.022tokens/sec

Claude 2.0

Anthropic

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 1
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.015
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: —

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0 matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0 analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)` vs `Claude 2.0`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0 debate, GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) scores 90 against Claude 2.0's 60. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0 comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0 decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)300ms

Claude 2.0300ms

Tokens per Second

GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)74.022

Claude 2.068

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0

Power is only one part of the equation. This GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0 pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) would cost $0.001, whereas Claude 2.0 would cost $0.018. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0 choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0 Battle for You?

Choose GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) if...

Your top priority is raw performance and capability.

You are working in a technical or scientific field requiring the highest accuracy.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Choose Claude 2.0 if...

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

You prioritize cost-effectiveness over maximum performance.

Your workload requires consistent, reliable performance.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Claude 2.0 Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/