Z.ai: GLM 5.1 ranks higher at 24/100 vs Mistral: Mistral 7B Instruct v0.1 at 22/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | Mistral: Mistral 7B Instruct v0.1 | 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 | $1.10e-7 per prompt token | $1.05e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Generates coherent, contextually-aware text responses to user prompts using a 7.3B parameter transformer architecture optimized for instruction-following tasks. The model processes input tokens through multi-head attention layers and produces output via autoregressive decoding, with special tuning for following explicit user instructions rather than generic text completion. Implements grouped-query attention (GQA) for reduced memory footprint and faster inference compared to standard multi-head attention.
Unique: Uses grouped-query attention (GQA) architecture to reduce KV cache memory by ~8x compared to standard multi-head attention, enabling faster inference and lower memory requirements while maintaining instruction-following quality. Specifically optimized for instruction-following rather than generic text completion, with training focused on following explicit user directives.
vs alternatives: Outperforms Llama 2 13B on all standard benchmarks while using 44% fewer parameters, delivering better latency and lower inference costs for instruction-following tasks without sacrificing quality.
Manages multi-turn conversations by concatenating previous messages and responses into a single prompt context, allowing the model to maintain conversation continuity and reference earlier exchanges. The implementation relies on the caller to manage conversation history as a growing text buffer, with the model processing the entire history on each turn to generate contextually-aware responses. This stateless approach requires no server-side session storage but increases token consumption with each turn.
Unique: Implements conversation continuity through simple prompt concatenation rather than fine-tuned conversation tokens or special conversation embeddings, making it compatible with any prompt format but requiring explicit history management by the caller.
vs alternatives: Simpler to implement than stateful conversation systems with dedicated session storage, but less efficient than models with native conversation memory or summarization capabilities for long-running interactions.
Produces text output token-by-token via streaming, allowing real-time display of model responses as they are generated rather than waiting for the complete response. The model uses autoregressive decoding with optimized inference kernels (likely leveraging vLLM or similar inference engines) to minimize latency between token generations. Streaming is typically exposed via HTTP Server-Sent Events (SSE) or WebSocket connections, enabling progressive rendering in client applications.
Unique: Leverages optimized inference kernels (likely vLLM or similar) with grouped-query attention to minimize per-token latency, enabling smooth streaming without batching delays. The 7.3B parameter size allows streaming on modest hardware compared to larger models.
vs alternatives: Faster streaming latency than larger models (70B+) due to smaller parameter count and GQA optimization, while maintaining instruction-following quality that rivals much larger models.
Accepts system-level instructions (via system prompt or special tokens) that condition the model's behavior for the entire conversation, allowing control over tone, style, role-play, and response constraints. The model processes system instructions as a special prefix to the conversation context, using attention mechanisms to weight system directives throughout token generation. This enables use cases like role-playing assistants, domain-specific experts, or constrained output formats without fine-tuning.
Unique: Instruction-tuned specifically for following explicit directives in system prompts, with training data emphasizing adherence to system-level constraints. The 7.3B parameter size is optimized for instruction-following rather than generic language modeling.
vs alternatives: More reliable instruction-following than base language models, and more efficient than fine-tuned models since system prompts require no additional training or model updates.
Exposes model inference through a REST API (via OpenRouter or Mistral's direct API) with configurable sampling parameters (temperature, top-p, top-k, max_tokens) that control output randomness and length. The API abstracts away model deployment complexity, handling tokenization, inference, and response formatting server-side. Sampling parameters are passed as request fields, allowing dynamic control over output behavior without model reloading.
Unique: Accessible via OpenRouter's unified API layer, which abstracts provider-specific differences and allows easy model switching without code changes. Sampling parameters are fully configurable per-request, enabling dynamic behavior adjustment.
vs alternatives: Simpler integration than self-hosted models (no infrastructure management), but higher latency and per-token costs compared to local deployment. OpenRouter's multi-provider support reduces vendor lock-in.
Achieves superior performance on standard instruction-following benchmarks (MMLU, HellaSwag, TruthfulQA, Winogrande, GSM8K, etc.) compared to larger models like Llama 2 13B, through targeted training on instruction-following data and architectural optimizations. Performance gains come from both model architecture (GQA, parameter efficiency) and training methodology (instruction-tuning on high-quality datasets). Benchmark performance is a proxy for real-world instruction-following capability across diverse tasks.
Unique: Outperforms Llama 2 13B (a much larger model) on all standard benchmarks through a combination of architectural efficiency (GQA), parameter optimization, and instruction-tuning methodology. The 7.3B parameter count achieves 13B-equivalent performance through superior training and architecture.
vs alternatives: Better benchmark performance than Llama 2 13B at 44% of the parameters, indicating superior efficiency and instruction-following capability. Benchmarks suggest this model punches above its weight class in instruction-following tasks.
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 Mistral: Mistral 7B Instruct v0.1 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