Z.ai: GLM 5.1 ranks higher at 24/100 vs Mistral: Mixtral 8x22B Instruct at 23/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | Mistral: Mixtral 8x22B Instruct | Z.ai: GLM 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Model | Model |
| UnfragileRank | 23/100 | 24/100 |
| Adoption |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $2.00e-6 per prompt token | $1.05e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Implements a sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) architecture with 8 expert modules, each containing 22B parameters, where only 2 experts are activated per token via a learned gating mechanism. This design achieves 39B active parameters out of 141B total, enabling instruction-following at near-70B model quality while maintaining inference efficiency comparable to 13B models. The routing mechanism learns which expert combinations best handle different token types (code, math, reasoning, general text) during fine-tuning.
Unique: Uses a learned sparse gating mechanism to activate only 2 of 8 experts per token, achieving 39B active parameters with full 141B parameter capacity available for diverse domains. This is architecturally distinct from dense models and from other MoE approaches that may use fixed routing or different expert counts.
vs alternatives: Delivers 70B-class instruction-following quality at 13B-class inference cost and latency, outperforming dense 13B models on math/code while being 5-10x cheaper than running a full 70B model.
Trained with specialized instruction data for mathematical problem-solving, enabling step-by-step symbolic reasoning, algebraic manipulation, and multi-step calculation chains. The model learns to decompose complex math problems into intermediate steps, apply mathematical rules, and verify solutions. This capability emerges from both the base Mixtral architecture and the instruct fine-tuning process that emphasizes reasoning transparency.
Unique: Combines sparse MoE routing with instruction fine-tuning specifically optimized for mathematical reasoning, allowing different experts to specialize in algebra, calculus, statistics, and logic domains while maintaining unified instruction-following interface.
vs alternatives: Outperforms GPT-3.5 on mathematical reasoning benchmarks while being significantly cheaper, though slightly behind GPT-4 on advanced symbolic manipulation tasks.
Generates syntactically correct code across 40+ programming languages through instruction-tuned patterns learned from diverse code repositories and technical documentation. The model understands code structure, common idioms, error patterns, and best practices for each language. It can generate complete functions, debug existing code, explain technical concepts, and suggest optimizations by leveraging both the base model's code understanding and the instruct fine-tuning that emphasizes clarity and correctness.
Unique: Leverages MoE architecture where specific experts specialize in different programming paradigms (imperative, functional, OOP) and language families, enabling consistent code quality across 40+ languages while maintaining instruction-following clarity.
vs alternatives: Comparable to GitHub Copilot for single-file code generation but with better multi-language support and lower API costs; stronger than GPT-3.5 on code reasoning but slightly behind Claude 3 Opus on complex architectural decisions.
Maintains coherent conversation state across multiple turns by processing full conversation history within the 32K token context window, allowing the model to reference previous statements, correct misunderstandings, and build on prior context. The instruction fine-tuning teaches the model to track conversation state, acknowledge context shifts, and maintain consistent persona and knowledge across turns without explicit state management.
Unique: Instruction fine-tuning specifically teaches the model to explicitly acknowledge and reference conversation context, making context awareness transparent in responses rather than implicit. This differs from base models that may lose context awareness without explicit prompting.
vs alternatives: Maintains conversation coherence comparable to GPT-4 within the 32K context window, with better cost efficiency; requires external persistence unlike some managed chatbot platforms but offers more control over conversation flow.
Generates responses token-by-token and streams them to the client in real-time via HTTP streaming (Server-Sent Events or chunked transfer encoding), enabling progressive response display without waiting for complete generation. The API returns tokens as they are generated by the model, allowing clients to display partial responses and provide immediate feedback to users while the full response is still being computed.
Unique: Implements streaming at the API level via OpenRouter's infrastructure, allowing clients to consume tokens as they are generated without requiring custom server-side streaming logic. This is abstracted away from the model itself but is a core capability of the API integration.
vs alternatives: Provides streaming capability comparable to OpenAI's API with better cost efficiency; simpler to implement than self-hosted streaming but with less control over the underlying generation process.
Responds to structured instructions that specify output format (JSON, XML, Markdown, plain text, code blocks) and follows those format constraints with high consistency. The instruction fine-tuning teaches the model to parse format requirements from prompts and generate responses that conform to specified schemas, enabling reliable structured output extraction without requiring separate parsing layers.
Unique: Instruction fine-tuning specifically optimizes for format compliance, teaching the model to prioritize format adherence when explicitly specified. This is more reliable than base models for format-constrained generation without requiring separate constrained decoding mechanisms.
vs alternatives: More cost-effective than using specialized function-calling APIs for structured output; comparable to Claude's JSON mode but with better multi-format support and lower API costs.
Synthesizes knowledge across multiple specialized domains (software engineering, mathematics, logic, natural language reasoning) by routing different types of problems to specialized expert modules within the MoE architecture. When processing a request, the gating mechanism activates experts that have learned to handle that specific domain, enabling coherent responses that combine domain-specific knowledge with general reasoning capabilities.
Unique: MoE architecture with expert specialization enables simultaneous optimization for multiple domains without the quality degradation typical of single dense models trying to handle diverse tasks. Expert routing learns to activate domain-appropriate experts based on input characteristics.
vs alternatives: Outperforms single-domain specialized models on cross-domain problems; more efficient than running multiple specialized models in parallel while maintaining comparable quality to larger dense models across all domains.
Processes input sequences up to 32,000 tokens (approximately 24,000 words or 100+ pages of text) in a single request, enabling analysis of entire documents, codebases, or conversation histories without chunking or summarization. The model maintains attention across the full context window, allowing it to reference information from any part of the input and generate coherent responses that integrate information from the entire context.
Unique: 32K context window is implemented at the model architecture level (using rotary position embeddings and efficient attention mechanisms), not as a post-hoc extension. This enables stable performance across the full context range without the degradation typical of extended context windows.
vs alternatives: Comparable to Claude 3's 200K context window for most practical tasks but with significantly lower API costs; longer context than GPT-3.5 (4K) or standard GPT-4 (8K) while maintaining reasonable latency and cost.
+2 more capabilities
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: Mixtral 8x22B Instruct at 23/100.
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