| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $5.00e-7 per prompt token | $1.05e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Implements a two-stage reasoning architecture where the model first generates explicit chain-of-thought reasoning tokens (visible to users and developers) before producing final answers. The reasoning phase uses reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to learn when and how to reason deeply, with a 671B parameter base model and 37B active parameters enabling efficient inference. This differs from o1-style hidden reasoning by exposing the full reasoning process, allowing developers to audit, debug, and understand model decision-making.
Unique: Open-sourced reasoning tokens with full visibility into intermediate steps, trained via RLHF to learn when deep reasoning is necessary, contrasting with proprietary o1 models that hide reasoning behind a black box. The 37B active parameters enable efficient inference while maintaining reasoning quality through mixture-of-experts or sparse activation patterns.
vs alternatives: Provides equivalent reasoning performance to OpenAI o1 at lower cost while exposing the full reasoning process for auditability, versus o1's hidden reasoning which prevents inspection but may be faster for simple queries.
Leverages a 671B parameter architecture trained on diverse reasoning tasks to solve problems spanning mathematics, physics, logic puzzles, code debugging, and multi-step planning. The model uses reinforcement learning to develop robust reasoning strategies that generalize across domains, with active parameter selection (37B active) enabling efficient routing of computation to relevant reasoning pathways. Handles problems requiring 5-20+ step logical chains without degradation in coherence or correctness.
Unique: Trained via reinforcement learning to dynamically allocate reasoning effort based on problem complexity, using sparse activation (37B active of 671B total) to route computation efficiently. This contrasts with fixed-depth reasoning in standard LLMs and enables o1-level performance on diverse problem types without proportional computational overhead.
vs alternatives: Matches o1's reasoning quality on complex problems while being open-source and exposing reasoning tokens, versus GPT-4 which lacks systematic reasoning depth and o1 which hides the reasoning process entirely.
Exposes the R1 0528 model through OpenRouter's REST API with support for both streaming (Server-Sent Events) and batch inference modes. Implements standard OpenAI-compatible chat completion endpoints with support for system prompts, temperature control, max tokens, and token counting. Streaming mode enables real-time reasoning token delivery as they're generated, while batch mode optimizes throughput for non-latency-sensitive workloads.
Unique: OpenRouter's abstraction layer provides unified API access to R1 0528 with transparent pricing, rate limiting, and fallback routing to alternative models if needed. Streaming mode specifically exposes reasoning tokens in real-time via SSE, enabling interactive reasoning visualization that proprietary APIs may not support.
vs alternatives: More accessible than self-hosted R1 deployment while offering better cost transparency than direct OpenAI API; streaming reasoning tokens provide advantages over o1's hidden reasoning for interactive applications.
Unlike proprietary o1, DeepSeek R1 0528 is open-sourced with publicly available model weights, enabling developers to run inference locally, fine-tune on custom datasets, or audit the model architecture. The 671B parameter model with 37B active parameters can be deployed on high-end GPUs (8x H100s or equivalent) or quantized for smaller hardware. Supports standard inference frameworks (vLLM, TensorRT-LLM, Ollama) with reproducible outputs given fixed random seeds.
Unique: Fully open-sourced weights enable local deployment and fine-tuning, contrasting with o1 which is proprietary and API-only. The sparse activation architecture (37B active of 671B) enables quantization and optimization strategies that maintain reasoning quality while reducing deployment costs compared to dense 671B models.
vs alternatives: Provides o1-equivalent reasoning with full model transparency and local deployment options, versus o1's proprietary API-only access and hidden weights; enables fine-tuning and auditing impossible with closed models.
Applies chain-of-thought reasoning to code generation and debugging tasks, producing not just code but explicit reasoning about correctness, edge cases, and potential bugs. The model reasons through algorithm selection, data structure choices, and error handling before generating code, enabling detection of subtle logic errors that standard code generation misses. Supports multiple programming languages and can reason about system-level concerns like concurrency, memory safety, and performance.
Unique: Reasoning-first approach to code generation where the model explicitly reasons about correctness, edge cases, and design trade-offs before producing code. This contrasts with standard code generation (Copilot, Claude) which produces code directly without visible reasoning, enabling detection of subtle bugs through explicit logical analysis.
vs alternatives: Produces more correct code for complex algorithms than Copilot or GPT-4 by reasoning through edge cases explicitly; slower than standard generation but catches bugs that would require manual review in alternatives.
Uses chain-of-thought reasoning to verify mathematical proofs step-by-step, identify logical gaps, and derive new conclusions from premises. The model can work with formal notation, symbolic reasoning, and multi-step logical chains, producing intermediate steps that can be checked for correctness. Supports both proof verification (checking existing proofs) and proof generation (deriving new results from axioms and lemmas).
Unique: Applies reinforcement-learning-trained reasoning to mathematical proof tasks, producing explicit step-by-step reasoning that can be audited for logical correctness. Unlike standard LLMs that generate plausible-sounding proofs, R1's reasoning approach enables identification of subtle logical gaps through visible intermediate steps.
vs alternatives: More reliable than GPT-4 for proof verification due to explicit reasoning; slower than specialized proof assistants (Lean, Coq) but more accessible and requires less formal notation expertise.
Maintains reasoning context across multiple turns in a conversation, enabling the model to build on previous reasoning steps and refine conclusions iteratively. Each turn generates new reasoning tokens that reference and build upon prior analysis, allowing developers to guide the reasoning process through follow-up questions and corrections. The model can revise earlier conclusions if new information contradicts prior reasoning.
Unique: Reasoning tokens persist across conversation turns, enabling visible refinement of reasoning as new information is introduced. This contrasts with standard LLMs where reasoning is implicit and hidden, making it impossible to audit how conclusions change with new context.
vs alternatives: Enables interactive reasoning refinement impossible with o1 (which hides reasoning) or standard LLMs (which lack systematic reasoning); slower than single-turn inference but more effective for complex problem-solving requiring iteration.
Implements mixture-of-experts or sparse activation patterns where only 37B of the 671B parameters are active per inference step, reducing computational cost and latency compared to dense 671B models while maintaining reasoning quality. The sparse routing mechanism learns which parameter subsets are relevant for different problem types, enabling efficient allocation of compute. This architecture enables deployment on smaller GPU clusters than would be required for dense models of equivalent quality.
Unique: Sparse activation architecture (37B active of 671B total) enables o1-equivalent reasoning quality at significantly lower computational cost than dense models. This contrasts with o1 which uses dense inference, and with standard sparse models which lack reasoning capabilities.
vs alternatives: Provides better cost-per-reasoning-quality ratio than o1 or dense 671B models; enables deployment on smaller infrastructure than alternatives while maintaining reasoning depth.
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: R1 0528 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