Z.ai: GLM 5.1 ranks higher at 24/100 vs Tencent: Hunyuan A13B Instruct at 22/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | Tencent: Hunyuan A13B Instruct | Z.ai: GLM 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Model | Model |
| UnfragileRank | 22/100 | 24/100 |
| Adoption |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $1.40e-7 per prompt token | $1.05e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Hunyuan-A13B uses a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with 13B active parameters selected from an 80B parameter pool, enabling efficient instruction-following through dynamic expert routing. The model supports explicit chain-of-thought reasoning patterns, allowing it to decompose complex tasks into intermediate reasoning steps before generating final responses. This architecture reduces computational overhead during inference while maintaining reasoning capability through selective expert activation based on input tokens.
Unique: Uses sparse MoE with 13B active parameters from 80B total pool, enabling chain-of-thought reasoning at lower inference cost than dense 70B+ models; Tencent's proprietary expert routing mechanism selects relevant experts per token rather than activating full parameter set
vs alternatives: More parameter-efficient than Llama 2 70B or Mistral 7B for reasoning tasks due to sparse activation, while maintaining instruction-following quality through MoE specialization; trades inference latency variance for lower per-token compute cost
Hunyuan-A13B is instruction-tuned to follow multi-turn conversational patterns, maintaining coherence across sequential user requests within a single session. The model processes each turn as context-aware input, allowing it to reference previous exchanges and adapt responses based on conversation history. This capability enables natural dialogue flows where the model understands implicit references, maintains consistent persona, and refines answers based on user feedback across turns.
Unique: Instruction-tuned specifically for multi-turn dialogue with MoE routing that may specialize certain experts for conversational coherence; Tencent's tuning approach emphasizes maintaining context across turns within the sparse expert framework
vs alternatives: Comparable to GPT-3.5 Turbo for multi-turn dialogue but with lower inference cost due to MoE sparsity; less capable than GPT-4 on complex multi-turn reasoning but more efficient than dense alternatives of similar parameter count
Hunyuan-A13B can generate code snippets and provide technical explanations by leveraging its instruction-tuning and chain-of-thought capability. When prompted with code-related tasks, the model can produce syntactically valid code in multiple languages, explain implementation logic, and reason through algorithmic problems. The MoE architecture may route to specialized experts for code understanding, though this is implementation-dependent and not explicitly documented.
Unique: Combines MoE sparse activation with instruction-tuning for code tasks; may route code-understanding experts selectively, reducing overhead vs dense models while maintaining code quality through specialized expert paths
vs alternatives: More efficient than Codex or GPT-3.5 Turbo for code generation due to sparse activation, but likely less capable than specialized code models like Codestral or GitHub Copilot on complex multi-file refactoring
Hunyuan-A13B is designed to achieve competitive performance on standard instruction-following benchmarks (MMLU, HellaSwag, TruthfulQA, etc.) through instruction-tuning and MoE specialization. The model's architecture allows different experts to specialize in different task domains, enabling strong cross-domain performance without proportional parameter scaling. This capability reflects the model's training on diverse instruction datasets and evaluation against established baselines.
Unique: Achieves competitive benchmark performance through MoE specialization rather than parameter scaling, allowing different experts to optimize for different task types; Tencent's instruction-tuning approach balances performance across diverse benchmarks within the sparse architecture
vs alternatives: Competitive with Llama 2 13B and Mistral 7B on benchmarks while using MoE for efficiency; likely underperforms dense 70B+ models on complex reasoning benchmarks but offers better cost-performance ratio
Hunyuan-A13B is accessible via OpenRouter's API, providing a managed inference endpoint without requiring local deployment or infrastructure management. The integration handles model loading, batching, and scaling transparently, exposing a standard REST API interface for text generation. Developers interact with the model through HTTP requests, specifying parameters like temperature, max tokens, and top-p sampling, with responses streamed or returned in full depending on configuration.
Unique: Accessed exclusively through OpenRouter's managed API rather than direct Tencent endpoints; OpenRouter handles MoE routing and expert selection server-side, abstracting infrastructure complexity from the caller
vs alternatives: Simpler integration than self-hosted Ollama or vLLM but with higher latency and per-token costs; comparable to using OpenAI API but with lower cost-per-token due to MoE efficiency
Hunyuan-A13B supports streaming generation through OpenRouter's API, allowing responses to be consumed token-by-token as they are generated rather than waiting for full completion. This capability enables real-time user feedback, progressive rendering in UIs, and early stopping based on application logic. The model exposes sampling parameters (temperature, top-p, top-k) for fine-grained control over generation behavior, allowing tuning of output diversity and determinism.
Unique: Streaming is implemented at the OpenRouter layer, not model-specific; MoE routing happens server-side, and tokens are streamed to the client as experts generate them, enabling low-latency progressive output
vs alternatives: Streaming capability is standard across modern LLM APIs; Hunyuan's advantage is lower per-token cost due to MoE efficiency, making streaming more economical for high-volume applications
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 Tencent: Hunyuan A13B Instruct at 22/100.
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