| 0 |
| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $9.00e-8 per prompt token | $1.05e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Executes multi-step research tasks over extended reasoning horizons by decomposing complex information-seeking goals into sub-queries, iteratively refining search strategies, and synthesizing findings across multiple sources. Uses an agentic loop architecture where the model decides when to search, what to search for, and when sufficient evidence has been gathered to answer the original query, enabling autonomous deep research without human intervention between steps.
Unique: Uses a 30B parameter model with 3B active tokens per inference step, enabling efficient long-horizon agentic loops without the computational cost of full-parameter activation. The sparse activation pattern (MoE-style) allows the model to maintain extended reasoning chains while keeping inference latency competitive with smaller models.
vs alternatives: More efficient than full-parameter 30B models for research tasks due to sparse activation, and maintains deeper reasoning capability than 7B-13B models while avoiding the latency penalties of 70B+ parameter dense models.
The model autonomously generates search queries based on information gaps identified during reasoning, executes searches, evaluates results, and decides whether to refine the search strategy or proceed to synthesis. This differs from simple retrieval by having the model control the search loop — it determines query reformulation, decides when to pivot search strategy, and identifies when sufficient information has been gathered, implementing a feedback loop between reasoning and information retrieval.
Unique: Implements a closed-loop search strategy where the model's reasoning directly controls search execution and evaluation, rather than treating search as a separate tool invoked once. The model maintains state across search iterations and makes explicit decisions about strategy pivoting, enabling adaptive research workflows.
vs alternatives: More adaptive than static RAG systems that execute a single retrieval pass, and more transparent than black-box search ranking because the model's reasoning about search strategy is part of the output.
Aggregates information from multiple search results and sources, identifies contradictions or conflicting claims, and synthesizes a coherent answer by reasoning about source credibility, recency, and relevance. The model maintains awareness of source provenance throughout reasoning and explicitly addresses conflicts rather than simply merging results, producing a unified narrative that acknowledges uncertainty where sources disagree.
Unique: Maintains explicit source tracking throughout the reasoning process and treats conflict resolution as a first-class reasoning task rather than a post-hoc merge operation. The model's reasoning about why sources conflict is part of the output, not hidden in the synthesis process.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than simple concatenation of search results, and more transparent than systems that silently pick one source — explicitly reasons about conflicts and explains resolution to the user.
Maintains coherent reasoning across extended context windows by using a mixture-of-experts (MoE) architecture where only 3 billion of 30 billion parameters activate per token, reducing computational overhead while preserving reasoning depth. This sparse activation pattern allows the model to process longer reasoning chains, maintain state across multiple research iterations, and synthesize information from numerous sources without the latency and memory penalties of dense full-parameter models.
Unique: Uses a 30B parameter MoE architecture with 3B active parameters per token, a design choice that balances reasoning capability with inference efficiency. This is distinct from dense 30B models and from smaller 7B-13B models — it achieves reasoning depth closer to 30B while maintaining latency closer to 7B.
vs alternatives: More efficient than dense 30B models for long-horizon tasks (lower latency, lower memory), and more capable than 7B-13B models for complex reasoning, making it a sweet spot for research-heavy applications.
Automatically breaks down complex, multi-faceted research questions into sub-tasks, executes them in a logical sequence, and combines results into a coherent final answer. The model identifies task dependencies, determines optimal execution order, and manages state across sub-tasks without explicit user guidance on decomposition strategy. This enables handling of queries that would normally require manual step-by-step prompting.
Unique: Implements autonomous task decomposition as part of the agentic reasoning loop, where the model decides how to break down complex queries without explicit user guidance. The decomposition is adaptive — if initial sub-tasks don't yield sufficient information, the model can revise the decomposition strategy.
vs alternatives: More flexible than fixed prompt templates that require users to specify task structure, and more transparent than black-box planning systems because the model's decomposition reasoning is part of the output.
Streams research progress and intermediate reasoning steps to the user in real-time, allowing visibility into what searches are being executed, what information gaps are being identified, and how the model is synthesizing results. Rather than waiting for a final answer, users see the research process unfold, including search queries executed, results evaluated, and reasoning about next steps, enabling early intervention if the research direction is incorrect.
Unique: Exposes the agentic reasoning loop as a stream of intermediate steps rather than hiding it behind a final answer. Users see search decisions, result evaluations, and reasoning refinements in real-time, making the research process auditable and interactive.
vs alternatives: More transparent than models that only output final answers, and more interactive than batch research systems that require waiting for complete execution before seeing any results.
Automatically identifies gaps in the current research and generates follow-up questions that would deepen understanding or fill missing information. The model maintains awareness of what has been learned so far and what remains unclear, suggesting natural next questions that build on previous research rather than starting fresh. This enables continuous research refinement without users having to manually think of follow-up questions.
Unique: Generates follow-up questions as part of the agentic reasoning process, maintaining awareness of what has been learned and what remains unclear. Questions are contextual to the specific research conducted, not generic templates.
vs alternatives: More contextual than static question templates, and more proactive than systems that only answer questions posed by users — actively guides research direction.
Provides access to the Tongyi DeepResearch model through OpenRouter's unified API interface, enabling integration without direct Alibaba endpoint management. OpenRouter abstracts provider-specific details (authentication, rate limiting, error handling) behind a standard REST API, allowing developers to integrate the model using familiar HTTP patterns and switch providers without code changes. Supports streaming responses, token counting, and standard LLM API conventions.
Unique: Accessed through OpenRouter's unified API rather than direct Alibaba endpoints, providing provider abstraction and multi-provider support. This enables developers to treat Tongyi DeepResearch as one option among many research models without provider-specific integration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible than direct Alibaba API access because it supports provider switching, and more standardized than proprietary APIs because it follows OpenRouter's conventions.
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 Tongyi DeepResearch 30B A3B 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