MoonshotAI: Kimi K2 Thinking ranks higher at 24/100 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.1 at 24/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | MoonshotAI: Kimi K2 Thinking | Z.ai: GLM 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Model | Model |
| UnfragileRank | 24/100 | 24/100 |
| Adoption |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $6.00e-7 per prompt token | $1.05e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 13 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-5.1 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
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2 Thinking 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