| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $1.10e-6 per prompt token | $1.05e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 5 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Implements OpenAI's chain-of-thought reasoning architecture with high reasoning_effort setting, allocating extended computational budget to internal reasoning steps before generating responses. The model performs multi-step logical decomposition for STEM problems, explicitly working through intermediate reasoning states rather than direct answer generation. This is achieved through a configurable reasoning effort parameter that controls the depth and duration of the internal reasoning process.
Unique: Implements configurable reasoning effort levels (low/medium/high) that directly control internal computation budget allocation, allowing developers to trade latency and cost for reasoning depth — a design pattern distinct from fixed-capacity reasoning models. The high setting specifically optimizes for STEM domains through domain-specific reasoning token allocation.
vs alternatives: Outperforms GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet on STEM benchmarks while maintaining lower cost than o3-full, making it the optimal choice for cost-sensitive STEM applications requiring extended reasoning.
Provides REST API access to the o3-mini-high model through OpenAI's standard chat completion endpoint, supporting both streaming and non-streaming response modes. Requests are authenticated via API key and transmitted over HTTPS, with responses formatted as JSON containing token usage metadata, finish reasons, and generated text. The streaming variant uses server-sent events (SSE) to deliver tokens incrementally, enabling real-time response rendering in client applications.
Unique: Integrates reasoning_effort parameter directly into standard OpenAI chat completion API without requiring separate endpoints or model variants, allowing developers to dynamically adjust reasoning depth per-request while maintaining API compatibility with existing OpenAI integrations.
vs alternatives: Maintains full backward compatibility with existing OpenAI API code while adding reasoning capabilities, eliminating migration friction compared to switching to entirely different model providers or architectures.
Balances computational cost and reasoning capability through the o3-mini architecture, which uses fewer parameters and optimized inference than o3-full while maintaining extended reasoning for STEM tasks. The high reasoning_effort setting allocates extended computation specifically to STEM reasoning patterns rather than general language understanding, reducing wasted computation on non-STEM queries. Cost is further optimized through selective reasoning — developers can use lower reasoning_effort settings for simpler queries and reserve high effort for complex problems.
Unique: Implements domain-specific parameter optimization where reasoning_effort is tuned for STEM tasks specifically, reducing computational overhead compared to general-purpose reasoning models that allocate equal reasoning budget across all domains. The o3-mini architecture itself is smaller than o3-full, enabling lower base inference costs.
vs alternatives: Provides 60-70% cost reduction vs o3-full for STEM tasks while maintaining comparable reasoning quality, making it the most cost-efficient extended-reasoning model for educational and scientific applications.
Supports multi-turn conversation history where each turn can leverage extended reasoning, maintaining conversation context across multiple exchanges. The model processes the full message history (system prompt + all previous user/assistant messages) before applying reasoning_effort to generate the next response. This enables interactive problem-solving sessions where users can ask follow-up questions, request clarifications, or build on previous reasoning steps without losing context.
Unique: Applies reasoning_effort parameter to the full conversation context rather than isolated queries, enabling reasoning to leverage previous problem-solving steps and user clarifications. This differs from stateless reasoning models that treat each request independently.
vs alternatives: Enables more natural interactive problem-solving compared to single-turn reasoning models, as users can iteratively refine solutions without losing reasoning context, though at the cost of higher per-turn token consumption.
Supports JSON mode and schema-based output constraints through OpenAI's structured output API, allowing developers to specify a JSON schema that the model must adhere to when generating responses. The model generates valid JSON that conforms to the provided schema, with built-in validation ensuring the output matches the specified structure, types, and constraints. This is particularly useful for STEM applications where structured data extraction (equations, solutions, step-by-step breakdowns) is required.
Unique: Integrates JSON schema validation directly into the reasoning loop, ensuring that extended reasoning outputs conform to specified structures without post-processing or validation layers. This differs from models that generate free-form text requiring external parsing.
vs alternatives: Eliminates the need for post-generation parsing and validation, reducing latency and error rates compared to extracting structured data from unstructured reasoning outputs.
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 OpenAI: o3 Mini High at 20/100.
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