| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $1.00e-7 per prompt token | $1.05e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Generates text by selectively activating only 11B of 196B parameters per token using a sparse Mixture of Experts (MoE) architecture. The model routes each token through a gating network that determines which expert modules to activate, reducing computational overhead while maintaining capability. This sparse activation pattern enables efficient inference without full model evaluation, trading off some latency for dramatically reduced memory and compute requirements compared to dense models of equivalent parameter count.
Unique: Uses a 196B parameter sparse MoE architecture that activates only 11B parameters per token through learned gating, achieving dense-model capability with sparse-model efficiency. This differs from dense models (which activate all parameters) and from other MoE implementations by optimizing the expert routing mechanism specifically for language understanding and generation tasks.
vs alternatives: Delivers comparable reasoning quality to dense 70B+ models while requiring 60-70% less compute per inference token than dense alternatives, making it faster and cheaper than GPT-4 or Llama 2 70B for equivalent capability levels.
Maintains and processes multi-turn conversation history by accepting role-based message sequences (system, user, assistant) and maintaining coherent context across exchanges. The model processes the entire conversation history as a single input sequence, with special tokens demarcating role boundaries, allowing it to track conversation state, maintain consistency in persona and knowledge, and reference previous exchanges. This enables stateless conversation handling where each request includes full history, avoiding server-side session management complexity.
Unique: Implements conversation context through stateless message arrays rather than server-side session storage, allowing clients to manage full conversation history and reducing backend complexity. The sparse MoE architecture processes this history efficiently by routing tokens through relevant experts based on conversation content.
vs alternatives: Simpler to deploy and scale than models requiring session management, while maintaining conversation coherence comparable to stateful chatbot systems like ChatGPT, at lower infrastructure cost.
Summarizes long documents or conversations into concise overviews while preserving key information. The model can generate summaries at different detail levels (brief bullet points, paragraph summaries, executive summaries) and can focus on specific aspects of the source material. This is implemented through instruction-following that specifies summary length, style, and focus areas.
Unique: Implements summarization through sparse expert routing that activates compression and key-information-extraction specialists based on document type and summary requirements. This allows efficient summarization without the parameter overhead of dense models.
vs alternatives: Provides summarization quality comparable to GPT-4 while being 40-50% cheaper, making it cost-effective for high-volume document processing and knowledge management workflows.
Generates and completes code across multiple programming languages by understanding syntax, semantics, and common patterns. The model was trained on diverse code repositories and can generate syntactically valid code, complete partial implementations, suggest refactorings, and explain code logic. It handles context from surrounding code to make completion suggestions that fit the existing codebase style and architecture, though it operates without access to the actual codebase structure or type information.
Unique: Leverages sparse MoE routing to efficiently handle code generation across 40+ languages by activating language-specific expert modules based on detected syntax and patterns. This allows a single model to maintain high-quality code generation across diverse languages without the parameter overhead of dense models.
vs alternatives: Faster and cheaper than Copilot or Claude for code generation due to sparse activation, while maintaining multi-language support comparable to GPT-4, making it suitable for cost-sensitive development tool integrations.
Performs multi-step reasoning by generating intermediate thinking steps that break down complex problems into manageable sub-tasks. The model can articulate its reasoning process, identify dependencies between steps, and build solutions incrementally. This capability enables solving problems that require planning, logical deduction, or mathematical reasoning by having the model explicitly work through each step rather than jumping directly to answers.
Unique: Implements reasoning through sparse expert routing that activates reasoning-specialized modules for complex tasks while maintaining efficiency. The MoE architecture allows the model to allocate more parameters to reasoning steps when needed without the overhead of a dense model.
vs alternatives: Provides reasoning transparency comparable to GPT-4 or Claude while consuming 40-50% fewer tokens due to sparse activation, making it cost-effective for reasoning-heavy applications.
Follows detailed instructions and adapts behavior based on system prompts that define role, constraints, output format, and task-specific rules. The model interprets natural language instructions and applies them consistently across multiple turns, allowing fine-grained control over response style, tone, and content restrictions. This is implemented through the system message role in multi-turn conversations, which establishes context that influences all subsequent responses.
Unique: Implements instruction-following through the sparse MoE architecture by routing tokens through instruction-interpretation experts that specialize in understanding and applying constraints. This allows efficient instruction-following without the parameter overhead of dense models.
vs alternatives: Provides instruction-following quality comparable to GPT-4 or Claude while being 40-50% cheaper to run, making it suitable for cost-sensitive applications requiring customizable AI behavior.
Answers questions and synthesizes information by processing provided context (documents, code, data) and extracting relevant information to formulate responses. The model reads through provided context, identifies relevant passages or concepts, and generates answers grounded in that context. This enables question-answering over custom documents without requiring external retrieval systems, though it's limited by context window size and doesn't perform semantic search across large document collections.
Unique: Implements context-aware question-answering through sparse expert routing that activates retrieval and synthesis experts based on question type and context content. This allows efficient processing of context without the parameter overhead of dense models.
vs alternatives: Simpler to implement than full RAG systems while providing comparable accuracy for small-to-medium documents, at lower cost than dense models. Suitable for applications where context fits in a single prompt.
Generates creative content (stories, poetry, marketing copy, dialogue) with controllable style and tone through natural language instructions. The model can adapt its writing style to match specified tones (formal, casual, humorous, etc.), genres, and audience levels. This is implemented through instruction-following capabilities combined with the model's training on diverse creative content, allowing fine-grained control over output characteristics without requiring fine-tuning.
Unique: Leverages sparse MoE routing to activate creative-writing specialists based on detected genre and style cues, allowing efficient generation of diverse creative content without the parameter overhead of dense models trained on all writing styles.
vs alternatives: Provides creative quality comparable to GPT-4 or Claude while being 40-50% cheaper, making it cost-effective for high-volume creative content generation in marketing and content creation workflows.
+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
StepFun: Step 3.5 Flash 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