| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $4.50e-8 per prompt token | $1.05e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Trinity Mini implements a 26B-parameter sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) architecture where only 8 out of 128 experts activate per token, reducing computational overhead while maintaining model capacity. The routing mechanism dynamically selects which expert sub-networks process each token based on learned gating functions, enabling efficient inference at 3B effective parameters. This sparse activation pattern allows the model to maintain reasoning quality across 131k token contexts without proportional compute scaling.
Unique: Uses 128-expert sparse MoE with 8-token-level active experts (3B effective parameters from 26B total), enabling sub-linear compute scaling for long contexts — most competing models either use dense architectures or coarser sequence-level routing
vs alternatives: Achieves 3-4x better token/dollar efficiency than dense 7B models (Mistral 7B, Llama 2 7B) while maintaining comparable reasoning quality, with native 131k context support vs 4k-8k windows in similarly-priced alternatives
Trinity Mini supports structured function calling through schema-based prompting and response parsing, where the model's expert routing mechanism can specialize certain experts for tool-use reasoning. The model accepts JSON schema definitions of available functions and generates structured tool calls in response, with the sparse MoE architecture potentially allocating specialized experts for function selection and parameter binding tasks. Integration occurs via standard LLM API patterns (OpenRouter) with response parsing for function names and arguments.
Unique: Leverages sparse MoE architecture where certain experts can specialize in tool-use reasoning, potentially improving function-calling accuracy through expert specialization — most competing models use uniform dense layers for all reasoning types
vs alternatives: Maintains function-calling accuracy comparable to GPT-4 and Claude while operating at 3B effective parameters, reducing inference costs by 5-10x for tool-using agent applications
Trinity Mini maintains coherent reasoning and context awareness across 131k-token input windows through optimized attention mechanisms and expert routing designed for long-sequence processing. The sparse MoE architecture reduces the quadratic complexity of full attention by limiting expert computation to active pathways, while position embeddings and attention patterns are tuned to preserve semantic relationships across extended contexts. This enables the model to perform multi-document analysis, long-form code understanding, and extended conversation history without context truncation.
Unique: Combines 131k context window with sparse MoE (only 3B active parameters) to achieve long-context reasoning without dense-model memory penalties — most 100k+ context models are dense 70B+ parameters, requiring 140GB+ VRAM
vs alternatives: Supports 16x longer context than GPT-3.5 (8k) and 2x longer than Llama 2 (100k) while using 10x fewer active parameters than Llama 2 70B, enabling cost-effective long-document analysis
Trinity Mini's sparse MoE architecture implements dynamic load balancing across 128 experts to prevent bottlenecks where all tokens route to the same expert subset. The routing mechanism uses learned gating functions that distribute token load probabilistically, with auxiliary loss terms during training that encourage balanced expert utilization. This prevents expert collapse (where most tokens ignore certain experts) and ensures GPU compute is distributed across available hardware, maintaining consistent throughput even under variable input patterns.
Unique: Implements probabilistic load balancing with auxiliary loss terms to prevent expert collapse, ensuring consistent expert utilization across diverse inputs — most MoE implementations use simpler top-k routing without explicit balancing, leading to uneven compute distribution
vs alternatives: Maintains 95%+ expert utilization across variable batches vs 60-70% for unbalanced MoE models, reducing per-token inference variance by 40-60% and enabling more predictable SLA compliance
Trinity Mini applies sparse MoE routing to code-specific reasoning tasks, where certain experts may specialize in syntax understanding, semantic analysis, and code generation patterns. The model processes code tokens through the full 128-expert pool with 8-expert activation per token, allowing the routing mechanism to select experts optimized for programming language constructs, API patterns, and algorithmic reasoning. This specialization occurs implicitly through training on diverse code datasets without explicit expert assignment.
Unique: Leverages sparse MoE to implicitly specialize experts on code reasoning tasks without explicit code-specific architecture, allowing the same 128-expert pool to handle both natural language and code with dynamic expert selection per token
vs alternatives: Achieves code generation quality comparable to Codex and GPT-4 while using 3B active parameters vs 175B for GPT-3.5, reducing inference cost by 50-100x for code-focused applications
Trinity Mini maintains coherent multi-turn conversations by preserving conversation history within the 131k-token context window and routing tokens through the sparse MoE architecture in a way that respects conversational continuity. The model processes previous turns as context, with the routing mechanism selecting experts that understand dialogue patterns, user intent tracking, and response consistency. Conversation state is managed entirely through context (no explicit memory store), allowing stateless API calls while maintaining semantic coherence across turns.
Unique: Maintains multi-turn coherence entirely through context-in-context (no external memory) while leveraging sparse MoE routing that can specialize experts on dialogue understanding, enabling cost-effective long conversations without state management overhead
vs alternatives: Supports 50+ turn conversations at 1/10th the cost of GPT-4 while maintaining comparable coherence, with no external memory store required — competing models either use dense architectures (higher cost) or require explicit conversation memory systems
GLM-5.1 executes multi-step coding tasks over extended timeframes without requiring human intervention between steps, using an internal planning mechanism that decomposes complex objectives into sub-tasks and maintains execution state across sequential operations. Unlike minute-level interaction models that require prompting after each step, this capability enables the model to autonomously navigate decision trees, handle errors, and adapt strategy based on intermediate results without context resets.
Unique: Designed specifically for minute+ autonomous execution windows rather than single-turn interactions; maintains internal execution state and decision-making across extended task horizons without requiring external orchestration or re-prompting between steps
vs alternatives: Outperforms GPT-4 and Claude for long-horizon coding tasks because it's architected for continuous autonomous operation rather than stateless request-response cycles
GLM-5.1 generates and refactors code with awareness of the full codebase structure, dependencies, and patterns, using semantic understanding of how changes in one file propagate to others. The model analyzes import graphs, function signatures, and usage patterns across files to ensure generated code maintains consistency and doesn't introduce breaking changes, rather than treating each file in isolation.
Unique: Maintains semantic awareness of codebase structure and cross-file dependencies during generation, enabling it to make coordinated changes across multiple files rather than treating each file independently
vs alternatives: Produces more consistent multi-file refactorings than Copilot or Claude because it reasons about the entire codebase context simultaneously rather than file-by-file
Z.ai: GLM 5.1 scores higher at 24/100 vs Arcee AI: Trinity Mini at 22/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
GLM-5.1 diagnoses errors and bugs by analyzing error messages, stack traces, and code context to identify root causes and suggest fixes. The model correlates error symptoms with likely causes, explains why errors occur, and provides specific debugging steps or code fixes.
Unique: Diagnoses errors by correlating symptoms with root causes using semantic understanding of code and error patterns, providing explanations and fixes rather than just pattern matching
vs alternatives: More effective at diagnosing subtle bugs than search-based solutions because it reasons about code semantics and error causality
GLM-5.1 identifies performance bottlenecks in code and suggests optimizations with specific implementation guidance, analyzing algorithms, data structures, and resource usage to recommend improvements. The model understands performance implications of different approaches and can suggest algorithmic or architectural changes to improve efficiency.
Unique: Suggests optimizations based on algorithmic and architectural analysis rather than just code-level tweaks, understanding performance implications of different approaches
vs alternatives: Provides more meaningful performance guidance than generic LLMs because it understands algorithm complexity and can suggest structural improvements
GLM-5.1 analyzes code for security vulnerabilities including injection attacks, authentication/authorization issues, cryptographic weaknesses, and data exposure risks, providing specific remediation guidance. The model understands common vulnerability patterns and security best practices to identify risks and suggest secure implementations.
Unique: Identifies security vulnerabilities through semantic analysis of code patterns and provides remediation guidance based on security best practices, not just pattern matching against known CVEs
vs alternatives: More effective at finding context-specific security issues than SAST tools because it understands code intent and can suggest secure implementations
GLM-5.1 performs step-by-step reasoning about code behavior by internally simulating or tracing execution paths, allowing it to predict runtime behavior, identify bugs, and explain code logic without requiring actual execution. This capability uses chain-of-thought-like reasoning applied specifically to code semantics, tracking variable state, control flow, and function call sequences to reason about correctness.
Unique: Applies extended reasoning specifically to code semantics and execution paths, enabling it to predict runtime behavior and identify subtle bugs through symbolic execution simulation rather than pattern matching
vs alternatives: More effective at finding subtle logic bugs than GPT-4 because it explicitly traces execution state rather than relying on pattern recognition
GLM-5.1 maintains rich context across multiple conversation turns when working on code, remembering previous edits, design decisions, and constraints without requiring users to re-specify them. The model builds an internal model of the codebase state and user intent that persists across turns, enabling iterative refinement where each turn builds on previous work rather than starting fresh.
Unique: Maintains stateful context across turns specifically optimized for code collaboration, remembering design decisions and codebase state without explicit memory structures
vs alternatives: Provides better iterative code refinement than stateless models because it retains context about previous edits and design intent across turns
GLM-5.1 translates natural language specifications into code that preserves semantic intent, handling ambiguous or underspecified requirements by inferring reasonable implementations based on context and common patterns. The model uses semantic understanding of both natural language and code to bridge the gap between high-level intent and low-level implementation details.
Unique: Translates natural language to code with explicit semantic fidelity checking, inferring reasonable implementations for underspecified requirements rather than producing literal or incomplete code
vs alternatives: Handles ambiguous requirements better than Copilot because it uses semantic reasoning to infer intent rather than pattern matching against training data
+5 more capabilities