Z.ai: GLM 5.1 ranks higher at 24/100 vs DeepSeek: DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale at 22/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | DeepSeek: DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale | Z.ai: GLM 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Model | Model |
| UnfragileRank | 22/100 | 24/100 |
| Adoption |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $4.00e-7 per prompt token | $1.05e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 7 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Implements DeepSeek Sparse Attention (DSA) architecture to process extended context windows efficiently by selectively attending to relevant token positions rather than computing full quadratic attention. This reduces computational complexity from O(n²) to near-linear while maintaining reasoning coherence across thousands of tokens, enabling multi-document analysis and complex problem decomposition without proportional latency increases.
Unique: Uses DeepSeek Sparse Attention (DSA) to achieve near-linear complexity for long-context processing instead of standard quadratic attention, with post-training RL optimization specifically tuned for agentic multi-step reasoning patterns
vs alternatives: Processes long contexts with lower latency than Claude 3.5 Sonnet or GPT-4 Turbo while maintaining reasoning quality through specialized sparse attention patterns rather than naive context truncation
Applies post-training reinforcement learning to optimize reasoning trajectories and decision-making quality, training the model to generate more effective intermediate reasoning steps and better decompose complex problems. The RL phase specifically targets agentic behavior patterns, improving the model's ability to plan multi-step solutions, backtrack when needed, and select optimal reasoning paths without explicit instruction.
Unique: Post-training RL phase specifically optimized for agentic reasoning patterns rather than general instruction-following, enabling autonomous multi-step problem decomposition and backtracking without explicit prompting
vs alternatives: Outperforms base language models on multi-step reasoning through RL-optimized trajectory selection, but requires less detailed prompting than models relying on few-shot chain-of-thought examples
The V3.2-Speciale variant allocates additional compute resources during inference to prioritize reasoning quality and agentic performance, dynamically adjusting token generation patterns and attention allocation based on task complexity. This high-compute configuration trades inference latency for output quality, making it suitable for complex reasoning tasks where accuracy outweighs speed requirements.
Unique: Speciale variant explicitly optimizes for maximum reasoning and agentic performance through adaptive compute allocation during inference, rather than fixed-size model weights like standard variants
vs alternatives: Delivers higher reasoning quality than standard DeepSeek-V3.2 through additional inference-time compute, similar to o1-preview's approach but with sparse attention efficiency gains
Supports extended multi-turn conversations where the model maintains reasoning context and decision history across turns, enabling agentic systems to build on previous reasoning steps and refine solutions iteratively. The sparse attention mechanism allows efficient state preservation across long conversation histories without exponential context growth, enabling agents to reference earlier decisions and reasoning without explicit context reinjection.
Unique: Combines sparse attention efficiency with multi-turn conversation support, enabling long conversation histories without proportional latency increases, unlike dense-attention models that degrade with history length
vs alternatives: Maintains conversation quality over longer histories than standard models due to sparse attention efficiency, while preserving agentic reasoning capabilities across turns
Generates code solutions and technical explanations leveraging RL-optimized reasoning patterns and high-compute inference, producing multi-step code solutions with reasoning traces. The model applies chain-of-thought reasoning to code generation tasks, breaking down problems into smaller steps and generating intermediate solutions before final code output, improving code quality and correctness.
Unique: Applies RL-optimized reasoning to code generation, enabling multi-step problem decomposition and intermediate solution generation before final code output, improving code quality vs single-pass generation
vs alternatives: Produces higher-quality code solutions than standard models through reasoning-optimized generation, while maintaining efficiency through sparse attention for large codebase context
Provides remote inference access via OpenRouter API, enabling integration into applications without local model deployment. The API abstracts model complexity and handles load balancing, rate limiting, and billing through OpenRouter's infrastructure, supporting standard HTTP requests with JSON payloads for text input and streaming or batch output modes.
Unique: Accessed exclusively through OpenRouter API rather than direct model deployment, leveraging OpenRouter's multi-provider abstraction layer for unified billing and model switching
vs alternatives: Simpler integration than direct API access to DeepSeek endpoints, with provider flexibility and unified billing across multiple model providers through OpenRouter
Supports structured output formats and function calling patterns enabling agentic systems to invoke tools and APIs through model-generated function calls. The model generates structured JSON or function signatures that downstream systems can parse and execute, enabling autonomous agent loops where the model decides which tools to invoke based on task requirements and previous results.
Unique: unknown — insufficient data on specific function calling implementation, schema support, and tool integration patterns
vs alternatives: unknown — insufficient data on how function calling compares to alternatives like OpenAI's function calling or Anthropic's tool use
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 DeepSeek: DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale 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