Free to start

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3

Try both on us. Starter credit covers your first requests, then one key routes Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GLM 5.3. Switch by changing the model name.

Compare routesProviders, price, context, and policy posture in one view.

Use auto when uptime mattersKeep a primary model and let fallback handle provider failures.

Same API shapeUse the OpenAI client and set the model you want.

Practical read

Monthly evidence

Z.ai: GLM 5.3 has the lower published input-plus-output rate, more Credits provider routes, the larger context window and the lower measured p50 time to first token.

$18.99/1MAnthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.5 cheapest route

$3.458818/1MZ.ai: GLM 5.3 cheapest route

1177 msAnthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.5 fastest measured p50 TTFT via anthropic

673 msZ.ai: GLM 5.3 fastest measured p50 TTFT via wafer

The price comparison adds each route's rate for one million input tokens and one million output tokens; your cost depends on your input/output mix. Prices and live route measurements can change. Use the monthly reports when you need a stable evidence window, then run a small task-specific eval before choosing a production default.

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.5Z.ai: GLM 5.3

Model idanthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5z-ai/glm-5.3

Publisher Anthropic Z.AI

AI IQ — IQ 124#28

Context1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens

Credits provider routes133

Cheapest route$18.99/1M$3.458818/1M

Cached input$0.3165/1M$0.1055/1M to $0.84189/1M

Privacy postureprovider posture varieshas Confidential route (E2EE + ZDR)

Fastest measured p50 TTFT1177 ms via anthropic673 ms via wafer

Highest measured throughputnot enough data196 tok/s via thinkingmachines

Recent route uptime range100.00%85.71% to 100.00%

Modes chat messages chat

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.5 routes

Overview1 Credits routes
BenchmarksTrustedRouter and external sources

Z.ai: GLM 5.3 routes

Overview33 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.365 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 5.3 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash65 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.361 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.359 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Z.ai: GLM 5.357 combined provider routes
OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b vs Z.ai: GLM 5.357 combined provider routes
Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.352 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.6 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.350 combined provider routes

Production choice

Pick a default model. Keep fallback enabled.

TrustedRouter is useful when you know the model you want, but still need provider rollover, budget limits, usage records, and a prompt path you can verify.

OpenAI clientPython

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Z.ai: GLM 5.3?

Z.ai: GLM 5.3 has the lower published input-plus-output rate, more Credits provider routes, the larger context window and the lower measured p50 time to first token.

Is Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Z.ai: GLM 5.3 cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $18.99/1M for Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.5 and $3.458818/1M for Z.ai: GLM 5.3. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Z.ai: GLM 5.3 faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 1177 ms for Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.5 and 673 ms for Z.ai: GLM 5.3. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Z.ai: GLM 5.3 with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 and z-ai/glm-5.3. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.