| 0 |
| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $7.50e-8 per prompt token | $6.00e-7 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 12 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Classifies text content across multiple safety dimensions (toxicity, hate speech, sexual content, violence, etc.) using a 21B-parameter MoE architecture trained specifically for safety reasoning. The model performs multi-label classification with confidence scores, enabling downstream filtering decisions. Unlike generic classifiers, it reasons about context and intent rather than pattern-matching keywords, reducing false positives on sarcasm, reclaimed language, and domain-specific terminology.
Unique: Uses a specialized 21B MoE architecture trained exclusively for safety reasoning rather than general-purpose language understanding, with sparse activation patterns that route safety-critical tokens through expert subnetworks optimized for adversarial detection and context-aware classification
vs alternatives: Faster and more context-aware than generic LLM-based classifiers (Claude, GPT-4) because it's purpose-built for safety with MoE sparsity, while more accurate than rule-based or shallow ML classifiers because it performs semantic reasoning about intent and context
Detects and flags adversarial prompts, jailbreak attempts, and prompt injection attacks by analyzing linguistic patterns, instruction-following cues, and known attack vectors. The model identifies attempts to override system instructions, bypass safety guidelines, or manipulate the LLM into unsafe behavior. It operates as a gating layer that can reject or flag suspicious inputs before they reach downstream LLMs, reducing attack surface.
Unique: Trained on a curated dataset of real-world jailbreak attempts and adversarial prompts collected from production LLM systems, enabling detection of attack patterns that generic safety models miss. MoE routing directs suspicious tokens to adversarial-detection experts rather than general classifiers.
vs alternatives: More effective than regex-based or rule-based jailbreak filters because it understands semantic intent and paraphrasing, and faster than running full LLM reasoning (GPT-4 as a judge) because it uses sparse MoE activation to focus compute on suspicious patterns
Validates and filters text generated by downstream LLMs before it reaches users, detecting unsafe, harmful, or policy-violating outputs. The model analyzes generated text for toxicity, misinformation, privacy violations, and other safety concerns, enabling post-hoc filtering of LLM outputs. It can be integrated as a guardrail layer in inference pipelines to prevent unsafe content from being served.
Unique: Specialized for evaluating LLM-generated text rather than user input, with training data that includes common failure modes of large language models (hallucinations, unsafe reasoning chains, policy violations). MoE experts are tuned for detecting subtle safety issues in fluent, coherent text.
vs alternatives: More efficient than running a second LLM as a judge (e.g., GPT-4 safety evaluation) because it uses sparse MoE activation, and more accurate than simple keyword/regex filtering because it understands semantic meaning and context in generated text
Performs simultaneous classification across multiple safety dimensions (toxicity, hate speech, sexual content, violence, illegal activity, misinformation, privacy violations, etc.) with independent confidence scores for each label. The model outputs a structured safety profile rather than a single binary decision, enabling fine-grained policy enforcement. Each label is scored independently, allowing downstream systems to apply different thresholds per category.
Unique: Trained with multi-task learning across safety dimensions, with MoE experts specialized for different harm categories (toxicity experts, hate speech experts, misinformation experts, etc.). Each expert produces independent confidence scores rather than a single aggregated decision.
vs alternatives: More flexible than binary safe/unsafe classifiers because it provides per-category scores, enabling policy-specific thresholds. More interpretable than black-box LLM judges because each label has explicit confidence, supporting audit and appeals workflows
Achieves sub-200ms latency for safety classification by using Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with sparse activation. Rather than running all 21B parameters, the model routes each input through a gating network that selects only the relevant expert subnetworks (typically 2-4 experts out of many), reducing compute by 80-90%. This enables real-time safety filtering in high-throughput systems without dedicated GPU infrastructure.
Unique: Uses learned gating networks to route inputs to specialized safety experts, with dynamic sparsity that adapts per-input. Unlike dense models that run all parameters, MoE activation is conditional — suspicious inputs trigger more experts, while benign inputs use fewer. This is fundamentally different from pruning or quantization approaches.
vs alternatives: 10-20x faster than running GPT-4 as a safety judge, and 2-3x faster than dense 20B models because sparse activation reduces compute. Maintains better accuracy than lightweight classifiers (BERT-based) because it has access to 21B parameters when needed, but only activates them selectively
Evaluates safety by understanding semantic context, intent, and nuance rather than pattern-matching keywords. The model reasons about whether content is harmful in context (e.g., distinguishing between reclaimed language, educational discussion of harmful topics, and actual harm). It uses transformer-based attention mechanisms to weigh different parts of the input, understanding that the same phrase can be safe or unsafe depending on context.
Unique: Trained on safety examples with rich contextual annotations, enabling the model to learn that identical phrases have different safety implications depending on context. Uses attention mechanisms to identify which parts of the input are most relevant to safety decisions, rather than treating all tokens equally.
vs alternatives: More accurate than keyword-based systems on edge cases (satire, reclaimed language, educational content), and more interpretable than black-box neural classifiers because attention patterns can be visualized to show which context influenced the decision
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
Z.ai: GLM 5 scores higher at 24/100 vs OpenAI: gpt-oss-safeguard-20b at 22/100.
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