| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $1.30e-7 per prompt token | $1.05e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 14 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Dynamically switches between fast-inference and extended-reasoning modes during generation, allowing the model to allocate computational budget based on query complexity. The model learns to route simple queries through direct generation paths while complex reasoning tasks trigger iterative chain-of-thought processing, implemented via a learned gating mechanism that predicts reasoning necessity before token generation begins.
Unique: Implements learned gating mechanism for automatic reasoning mode selection rather than fixed routing rules or user-specified flags, enabling the model to discover optimal reasoning allocation patterns during training on diverse task distributions
vs alternatives: More efficient than standard chain-of-thought models (which always reason) and more capable than fast-only models (which never reason) by learning when reasoning is actually necessary
Generates multi-step reasoning chains with explicit intermediate steps, leveraging the 70B parameter scale to maintain coherence across long reasoning sequences. When activated, the model produces verbose step-by-step explanations with intermediate conclusions, implemented via training on synthetic reasoning datasets and reinforced through process-reward modeling to prefer logically sound intermediate steps.
Unique: Combines 70B parameter scale with process-reward modeling to maintain reasoning coherence across 10+ step chains, whereas smaller models typically degrade after 3-4 steps due to context drift and accumulated errors
vs alternatives: Produces more reliable multi-step reasoning than GPT-3.5 while being more cost-effective than GPT-4 for reasoning tasks, with explicit step visibility that proprietary models don't expose
Answers factual and reasoning-based questions by retrieving relevant knowledge and applying logical deduction. The model combines pattern matching from training data with reasoning chains to synthesize answers, particularly effective when questions require multi-step inference or combining information from multiple domains.
Unique: Combines dense knowledge from 70B parameters with learned reasoning patterns, enabling both factual recall and multi-step inference without requiring external knowledge bases for simple questions
vs alternatives: More self-contained than RAG-based systems for general knowledge questions; stronger reasoning than GPT-3.5 for complex multi-step problems
Analyzes sentiment and extracts opinions from text, classifying emotional tone and identifying specific viewpoints or attitudes. The model recognizes sentiment markers (words, phrases, context) and generates structured sentiment labels (positive/negative/neutral) with confidence scores and supporting evidence.
Unique: Uses contextual understanding from 70B parameters to recognize sentiment in complex linguistic contexts (sarcasm, negation, mixed opinions) rather than relying on keyword matching or shallow pattern recognition
vs alternatives: More nuanced than rule-based sentiment tools; comparable to fine-tuned BERT models but with better handling of complex linguistic phenomena
Identifies and extracts named entities (people, organizations, locations, dates, etc.) from text, classifying them into semantic categories. The model recognizes entity boundaries and types through learned patterns from training data, generating structured output with entity spans and classifications.
Unique: Uses contextual embeddings from 70B parameters to disambiguate entity boundaries and types based on surrounding context, rather than relying on gazetteer matching or shallow pattern recognition
vs alternatives: More accurate than spaCy NER for complex entity types; comparable to fine-tuned BERT models but with better generalization to unseen entity types
Identifies potentially harmful, inappropriate, or policy-violating content including hate speech, violence, adult content, and misinformation. The model applies learned safety patterns to classify content risk levels and flag problematic material, implemented through instruction-tuning on safety datasets and reinforcement learning from human feedback on safety preferences.
Unique: Trained on diverse safety datasets with RLHF to recognize context-dependent harms (e.g., discussing violence in historical context vs. inciting violence), rather than simple keyword matching or rule-based filtering
vs alternatives: More context-aware than keyword-based filters; comparable to OpenAI's moderation API but with lower latency and no external API dependency
Executes complex multi-part instructions with precise output formatting, using instruction-tuning techniques to reliably parse structured prompts and generate outputs matching specified schemas. The model was trained on diverse instruction datasets with explicit format specifications, enabling it to follow JSON schemas, XML structures, markdown formatting, and code block requirements with high consistency.
Unique: Instruction-tuned on 70B scale with explicit format examples in training data, enabling reliable multi-format output without requiring external grammar constraints or post-processing validation layers
vs alternatives: More reliable at format compliance than base Llama 3.1 70B while avoiding the latency overhead of constrained decoding libraries like outlines or guidance
Generates syntactically correct code across 20+ programming languages and performs refactoring tasks like optimization, style conversion, and bug fixing. Built on Llama 3.1's code training, enhanced with instruction-tuning for code-specific tasks, the model maintains language-specific idioms and best practices through learned patterns from diverse codebases.
Unique: 70B parameter scale enables context-aware code generation that tracks variable types and function signatures across 4K+ token contexts, whereas smaller models lose type information after ~1K tokens
vs alternatives: Comparable to Copilot for single-file generation but stronger at multi-file refactoring due to larger context window; more cost-effective than Claude for routine code tasks
+6 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
Nous: Hermes 4 70B scores higher at 24/100 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.1 at 24/100.
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