| 0 |
| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $6.00e-7 per prompt token | $6.00e-7 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 12 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Implements a multi-step reasoning framework that decomposes complex problems into intermediate reasoning steps before generating final outputs. Uses a chain-of-thought-like mechanism optimized for agentic tasks that require planning across multiple decision points, leveraging the trillion-parameter MoE architecture to maintain coherence across extended reasoning chains without token collapse.
Unique: Trillion-parameter MoE architecture enables reasoning chains to scale without the token-collapse problem seen in dense models; K2 Thinking extends the K2 series specifically for agentic long-horizon tasks rather than generic reasoning, suggesting specialized routing and attention patterns for multi-step planning
vs alternatives: Maintains reasoning coherence across longer planning horizons than o1-preview due to MoE sparse activation, while offering lower latency than o1 for moderate-complexity tasks through optimized routing
Generates structured task decomposition plans that break down high-level goals into executable subtasks with dependencies, preconditions, and success criteria. The model uses its reasoning capability to identify task ordering constraints and potential failure modes, producing outputs compatible with agentic frameworks that require explicit task graphs or DAGs for orchestration.
Unique: Reasoning-first approach to task decomposition means the model explicitly works through dependencies and constraints before generating the final plan, rather than directly generating task lists — this produces more robust plans but at higher latency cost
vs alternatives: More thorough dependency analysis than GPT-4 due to extended reasoning, but slower than function-calling-only approaches that skip explicit planning
Analyzes strategic decisions by reasoning through multiple factors, trade-offs, and long-term consequences. The model considers different stakeholder perspectives, identifies risks and opportunities, and produces decision recommendations with explicit reasoning about why certain options are preferable given the constraints and objectives.
Unique: Reasons through decision consequences and trade-offs holistically rather than evaluating options independently, producing more integrated analysis but at higher reasoning cost
vs alternatives: More thorough trade-off analysis than GPT-4 for complex strategic decisions, but slower than simple option comparison
Maintains conversational state across multiple turns while preserving reasoning context, allowing follow-up questions to build on previous reasoning steps without re-computation. Implements a context window management strategy that keeps reasoning traces accessible for refinement, correction, or extension in subsequent turns without losing intermediate conclusions.
Unique: Reasoning context is preserved across turns as part of the conversation history, enabling the model to reference and refine its own reasoning steps — this differs from standard chat models that treat reasoning as ephemeral
vs alternatives: Enables iterative reasoning refinement that GPT-4 cannot do without explicit re-prompting, while maintaining lower latency than o1 for follow-up turns since reasoning context is cached
Generates code solutions by first reasoning through algorithmic correctness, edge cases, and implementation tradeoffs before producing the final code. The reasoning phase identifies potential bugs, performance issues, and test cases that should be considered, resulting in more robust code generation than direct synthesis. Output includes both the code and the reasoning justification for design choices.
Unique: Separates reasoning phase from code generation, allowing the model to think through correctness before committing to implementation — this mirrors human expert code review but is done before generation rather than after
vs alternatives: Produces more correct code than Copilot for algorithmic problems due to explicit reasoning, but slower than GitHub Copilot for simple completions; more interpretable than o1 code generation since reasoning is exposed
Analyzes multi-constraint problems by reasoning through constraint interactions, identifying conflicts, and finding solutions that satisfy all constraints simultaneously. Uses the extended reasoning capability to explore the constraint satisfaction problem space, backtrack when conflicts are detected, and propose solutions with explicit justification of how each constraint is satisfied.
Unique: Applies reasoning to constraint satisfaction by explicitly exploring the problem space and backtracking when conflicts are detected, rather than using heuristic search or greedy algorithms — this produces more interpretable solutions but at higher computational cost
vs alternatives: More flexible than constraint solvers for problems with soft constraints or ambiguous requirements, but slower and less optimal than specialized solvers like OR-Tools for well-defined CSPs
Reasons through multi-step API orchestration sequences, identifying which APIs to call, in what order, how to handle dependencies between calls, and how to transform data between API boundaries. The reasoning phase considers error handling, rate limiting, and fallback strategies before generating the orchestration plan, producing executable sequences compatible with agentic frameworks.
Unique: Reasons through the entire orchestration problem space before generating the plan, considering dependencies, error cases, and data transformations holistically — this differs from function-calling approaches that decide each call independently
vs alternatives: More thorough planning than GPT-4 function calling for complex multi-step sequences, but requires more explicit API schema information than some alternatives
Solves open-ended problems expressed in natural language by reasoning through the problem space, considering multiple solution approaches, and generating detailed explanations of the reasoning process. The model produces not just answers but also the justification for why that answer is correct, making it suitable for educational contexts and situations requiring transparency.
Unique: Generates explanations as part of the reasoning process rather than post-hoc, meaning the explanation is integral to how the solution is derived — this produces more coherent explanations but at higher latency
vs alternatives: More thorough explanations than GPT-4 for complex problems due to extended reasoning, but slower than direct-answer models for simple queries
+3 more capabilities
GLM-5 processes extended code contexts (supporting multi-file projects and large codebases) while maintaining semantic understanding of system architecture through attention mechanisms optimized for code structure. The model uses specialized tokenization for programming languages and maintains coherence across thousands of tokens of code context, enabling generation of complex features that respect existing patterns and dependencies.
Unique: Engineered specifically for complex systems design with attention mechanisms tuned for code structure and architectural patterns, rather than generic language modeling — enables understanding of system-wide dependencies and design constraints across extended contexts
vs alternatives: Outperforms general-purpose models on large-scale programming tasks because it's optimized for architectural coherence and long-horizon code generation rather than treating code as generic text
GLM-5 supports extended reasoning chains for agentic workflows through structured prompt patterns that enable step-by-step decomposition of complex tasks. The model can maintain state across multiple turns, reason about tool outputs, and make decisions about next actions — designed for long-horizon agent loops where the model must plan, execute, observe, and adapt across dozens of steps.
Unique: Explicitly engineered for long-horizon agent workflows with architectural patterns optimized for extended reasoning chains, rather than single-turn tool calling — maintains coherence and decision quality across dozens of reasoning steps
vs alternatives: Better suited for multi-step agentic tasks than general-purpose models because reasoning and tool-use patterns are baked into the training, not bolted on via prompt engineering
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2 Thinking scores higher at 24/100 vs Z.ai: GLM 5 at 24/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
GLM-5 analyzes code for performance bottlenecks and suggests optimization strategies through understanding of algorithmic complexity, memory management, and system-level performance patterns. The model can identify inefficient algorithms, suggest data structure improvements, and recommend caching or parallelization strategies — enabling targeted performance improvements with understanding of trade-offs.
Unique: Understands algorithmic complexity and system-level performance patterns, enabling identification of fundamental bottlenecks and suggestion of targeted optimizations rather than micro-optimizations
vs alternatives: Identifies more fundamental performance issues than profiling tools because it understands algorithmic complexity and can suggest architectural improvements, not just code-level optimizations
GLM-5 generates comprehensive API specifications, including endpoint definitions, request/response schemas, error handling, and usage examples through understanding of API design best practices and REST/GraphQL patterns. The model can produce OpenAPI/Swagger specifications, generate API documentation, and suggest design improvements — enabling rapid API specification and documentation.
Unique: Generates comprehensive API specifications that follow REST/GraphQL best practices and include error handling, authentication, and usage examples — not just endpoint definitions
vs alternatives: Produces more complete and best-practice-aligned API specifications than simple code-to-spec tools because it understands API design patterns and includes comprehensive documentation
GLM-5 generates high-quality technical documentation, design documents, and architectural specifications through training on expert-level technical writing patterns. The model understands domain-specific terminology, maintains consistency across long documents, and can generate structured documentation (API specs, RFC-style documents, architecture decision records) with appropriate technical depth and precision.
Unique: Trained on expert-level technical documentation patterns and domain-specific terminology, enabling generation of publication-ready documentation with appropriate technical depth rather than generic summaries
vs alternatives: Produces more technically precise and domain-aware documentation than general-purpose models because it understands architectural patterns, trade-offs, and expert writing conventions specific to software engineering
GLM-5 breaks down complex, ambiguous problems into structured task hierarchies and implementation plans through chain-of-thought reasoning patterns. The model can identify dependencies, suggest phased approaches, and generate detailed step-by-step plans for tackling large engineering challenges — useful for translating high-level requirements into actionable development roadmaps.
Unique: Optimized for expert-level problem decomposition through training on complex system design patterns and architectural reasoning, enabling generation of sophisticated multi-phase plans rather than simple task lists
vs alternatives: Produces more sophisticated and architecturally-aware plans than general-purpose models because it understands system design patterns, dependency relationships, and phased implementation strategies
GLM-5 analyzes code for quality issues, architectural violations, and design improvements through patterns learned from expert code review practices. The model can identify performance bottlenecks, suggest refactoring opportunities, flag architectural inconsistencies, and provide detailed feedback on code quality — going beyond simple linting to understand design intent and system-wide implications.
Unique: Trained on expert code review patterns and architectural reasoning, enabling detection of design issues and architectural violations rather than just syntax and style problems
vs alternatives: Provides more sophisticated architectural and design feedback than linting tools because it understands system-wide implications and expert design patterns, not just local code quality
GLM-5 translates code between programming languages while preserving semantic meaning and adapting to language-specific idioms. The model understands language-specific patterns, libraries, and best practices, enabling translation that produces idiomatic code rather than mechanical line-by-line conversions — useful for migrating systems across language ecosystems or supporting polyglot architectures.
Unique: Produces idiomatic, language-specific code rather than mechanical translations because it understands language-specific patterns, libraries, and best practices learned from diverse codebases
vs alternatives: Generates more idiomatic and maintainable translations than simple pattern-matching tools because it understands semantic equivalence and language-specific idioms
+4 more capabilities