| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $4.80e-7 per prompt token | $1.05e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Classifies incoming user prompts against a taxonomy of 6 content safety categories (violence, illegal activity, self-harm, sexual content, harassment, and specialized harms) using a fine-tuned Llama 3.1 8B backbone. The model outputs structured safety labels with confidence scores, enabling real-time filtering of unsafe requests before they reach downstream LLMs. Uses instruction-following patterns from Llama 3.1 training combined with safety-specific fine-tuning to distinguish between discussing harmful topics (safe) and requesting harmful actions (unsafe).
Unique: Purpose-built safety classifier based on Llama 3.1 8B (not a general-purpose LLM repurposed for safety) with fine-tuning specifically on safety classification tasks, enabling better calibration of confidence scores and category-specific accuracy compared to using general LLMs with safety prompts
vs alternatives: Smaller and faster than OpenAI Moderation API (8B vs 175B+) while maintaining comparable accuracy on standard safety categories, and can run locally without API latency or cost-per-request fees
Classifies LLM-generated outputs (responses, completions, assistant messages) against the same 6-category safety taxonomy to detect when downstream models produce unsafe content. Operates on the same fine-tuned Llama 3.1 8B architecture but is applied post-generation to catch safety failures in model outputs. Enables real-time detection of jailbreak successes, hallucinated harmful instructions, or unintended unsafe content generation.
Unique: Designed specifically for post-generation classification with fine-tuning that handles longer, more complex outputs compared to prompt-only classifiers, and includes patterns for detecting subtle unsafe content in natural language responses rather than just explicit requests
vs alternatives: Provides symmetric safety coverage (both input and output) using a single model architecture, reducing operational complexity compared to running separate prompt and response classifiers from different vendors
Returns safety classifications as structured JSON with per-category confidence scores (typically 0.0-1.0 range) rather than binary pass/fail verdicts, enabling fine-grained safety policy decisions. The model outputs logits or probability distributions across the 6 safety categories, allowing applications to set custom thresholds per category (e.g., stricter on violence, more lenient on political content). Implements a multi-label classification approach where content can be flagged in multiple categories simultaneously.
Unique: Exposes per-category confidence scores from the fine-tuned Llama 3.1 8B model rather than aggregating to a single safety verdict, enabling category-specific policy enforcement and detailed safety telemetry that most general-purpose safety APIs abstract away
vs alternatives: Provides more granular control than binary safety APIs (OpenAI Moderation) while remaining simpler than building custom classifiers, allowing teams to implement domain-specific safety policies without retraining models
Classifies content against specialized harm categories beyond standard content policy violations, including CSAM-related content, illegal activities, self-harm, and harassment. The fine-tuning incorporates patterns for detecting nuanced harms (e.g., grooming language, suicide encouragement) that may not be caught by keyword-based or simple pattern-matching approaches. Uses instruction-following capabilities of Llama 3.1 to understand context and intent rather than relying on surface-level text matching.
Unique: Fine-tuned specifically on specialized harm patterns (CSAM, illegal activity, self-harm, harassment) rather than general content policy violations, enabling detection of context-dependent and sophisticated harms that require semantic understanding rather than keyword matching
vs alternatives: Detects nuanced specialized harms using semantic understanding (context, intent, metaphor) compared to keyword-based or regex-based systems, while remaining faster and cheaper than human review or multi-model ensemble approaches
Supports batch processing of multiple prompts or responses through OpenRouter's API, enabling efficient classification of large volumes of content without per-request overhead. Integrates with OpenRouter's batch API infrastructure to queue, process, and retrieve safety classifications asynchronously, reducing per-request latency and cost for high-volume moderation pipelines. Handles rate limiting, retries, and result aggregation transparently.
Unique: Integrates with OpenRouter's batch API infrastructure to provide asynchronous, cost-optimized safety classification without requiring local model deployment or managing inference infrastructure, while maintaining the same safety accuracy as synchronous API calls
vs alternatives: Reduces per-request cost and API overhead compared to synchronous classification for high-volume use cases, while remaining simpler than self-hosting the model or building custom batch processing infrastructure
Classifies safety across multiple languages using the same fine-tuned Llama 3.1 8B model, leveraging the base model's multilingual capabilities. However, safety fine-tuning is primarily optimized for English, with varying accuracy across other languages depending on training data representation. The model uses cross-lingual transfer learning to extend English safety patterns to other languages, but performance degrades gracefully for low-resource languages or non-Latin scripts.
Unique: Leverages Llama 3.1's multilingual base model to extend English-optimized safety fine-tuning across 8+ languages through cross-lingual transfer, enabling single-model deployment for global moderation without language-specific retraining
vs alternatives: Simpler operational model than deploying separate language-specific safety classifiers, though with accuracy tradeoffs for non-English languages compared to language-specific fine-tuned models
Integrates with LLM frameworks (LangChain, LlamaIndex, Anthropic SDK, OpenAI SDK) and safety middleware systems through standardized API interfaces. Can be deployed as a prompt guard (pre-LLM) or response filter (post-LLM) in application chains, with built-in support for async/await patterns, error handling, and fallback logic. Supports integration with observability platforms for logging, monitoring, and alerting on safety violations.
Unique: Designed for integration into LLM application frameworks through standard API patterns (async/await, callbacks, middleware hooks) rather than as a standalone service, enabling seamless safety classification within existing application architectures
vs alternatives: Integrates more naturally into LLM application frameworks compared to external safety APIs that require custom orchestration, reducing boilerplate code and enabling framework-native error handling and observability
Provides safety classifications that can be composed with custom policy rules and business logic to implement application-specific safety policies. The model outputs structured category scores that applications can combine with custom rules (e.g., 'block if violence_score > 0.7 AND user_is_minor', 'warn if harassment_score > 0.5 AND user_is_verified'). Enables policy-as-code approaches where safety decisions are driven by composable rules rather than hard-coded thresholds.
Unique: Outputs structured category scores designed for composition with custom policy rules and business logic, enabling application-specific safety policies without model retraining or hard-coded thresholds
vs alternatives: More flexible than fixed-policy safety APIs (OpenAI Moderation) while remaining simpler than building custom classifiers, enabling teams to implement domain-specific and user-segment-specific safety policies through rule composition
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 Llama Guard 3 8B 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