| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $1.05e-6 per prompt token | $3.00e-6 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 8 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
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
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
Generates natural language responses mimicking Claude 3 Sonnet/Opus writing style through fine-tuning on Qwen2.5 72B base model. Uses instruction-tuned architecture to follow complex multi-step prompts while maintaining coherent, well-structured prose with appropriate tone and formality levels. The model learns stylistic patterns from Claude outputs during fine-tuning rather than using retrieval or prompt engineering alone.
Unique: Fine-tuned specifically on Claude 3 Sonnet/Opus output patterns rather than generic instruction-tuning, creating a style-matched alternative that preserves Anthropic's prose characteristics while running on Qwen2.5's 72B architecture
vs alternatives: Offers Claude-quality writing at lower cost than Anthropic's API and with more deployment flexibility than proprietary models, though with less transparency about training methodology than fully open-source alternatives like Llama
Maintains coherent multi-turn dialogue through transformer-based attention mechanisms that track conversation history and speaker context. The instruction-tuned architecture processes entire conversation threads as input, allowing the model to reference previous exchanges, maintain consistent character/tone, and resolve pronouns and references across turns without explicit memory structures.
Unique: Inherits Qwen2.5's instruction-tuning approach to conversation, which explicitly trains on multi-turn formats with clear role markers, enabling better context resolution than models trained primarily on single-turn examples
vs alternatives: Simpler integration than systems requiring external memory stores (RAG, vector DBs) since context is handled natively, but less sophisticated than models with explicit memory architectures or retrieval-augmented approaches for very long conversations
Magnum v4 72B scores higher at 25/100 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.1 at 24/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Generates code snippets and technical explanations by applying instruction-tuned patterns learned from fine-tuning on Claude outputs. The model understands code context from natural language descriptions, can generate multiple programming languages, and provides explanations alongside code. Implementation relies on transformer attention over code tokens and learned associations between natural language intent and code patterns.
Unique: Fine-tuned on Claude's code generation outputs, capturing Anthropic's approach to code explanation and safety considerations (e.g., error handling suggestions) rather than pure code-to-code translation
vs alternatives: Provides better code explanations and safety context than specialized code models like CodeLlama, but likely slower and less specialized than models fine-tuned specifically on code-only datasets
Applies learned chain-of-thought reasoning patterns from Claude fine-tuning to break down complex problems into steps. The model generates intermediate reasoning steps before final answers, using transformer attention to track logical dependencies across reasoning chains. This is achieved through instruction-tuning on examples where Claude explicitly shows reasoning work.
Unique: Inherits Claude's explicit chain-of-thought training approach, which emphasizes showing reasoning work as part of the output rather than reasoning internally, making reasoning patterns visible and auditable
vs alternatives: More transparent reasoning than models without explicit chain-of-thought training, but less specialized than models fine-tuned specifically on mathematical reasoning datasets or formal logic
Condenses long-form text into summaries while preserving key information, using attention mechanisms to identify salient content and instruction-tuned patterns for summary formatting. The model learns from Claude's summarization style, which emphasizes clarity and hierarchical organization of information. Works by attending to important tokens and generating compressed representations.
Unique: Fine-tuned on Claude's summarization outputs, which emphasize hierarchical structure and clear topic organization rather than extractive summarization, producing more readable abstracts
vs alternatives: Better prose quality and readability than extractive summarization tools, but less specialized than models fine-tuned specifically on summarization tasks or using dedicated abstractive architectures
Executes complex, multi-part instructions by parsing task structure and maintaining execution context across steps. The instruction-tuned architecture learns to identify task boundaries, handle conditional logic (if-then patterns), and sequence operations correctly. Implementation relies on transformer attention to track task state and learned patterns from Claude's instruction-following training.
Unique: Trained on Claude's instruction-following patterns, which emphasize explicit acknowledgment of task structure and step-by-step execution reporting, making task progress transparent
vs alternatives: More reliable instruction-following than base models without instruction-tuning, but less specialized than models with explicit task planning architectures or reinforcement learning from human feedback on instruction compliance
Answers questions by understanding context, identifying relevant information, and generating coherent responses. Uses transformer attention to locate answer-relevant tokens and instruction-tuned patterns to format responses appropriately. The model learns from Claude's question-answering style, which emphasizes accuracy, nuance, and acknowledgment of uncertainty.
Unique: Fine-tuned on Claude's QA outputs, which emphasize acknowledging uncertainty, providing nuanced answers, and explaining reasoning rather than simple factual retrieval
vs alternatives: Better answer quality and nuance than retrieval-based QA systems, but without external knowledge bases or web search, limited to training data knowledge unlike RAG-augmented systems
Generates creative text including stories, essays, marketing copy, and other original content by learning stylistic patterns from Claude's creative outputs. The model uses transformer attention to maintain narrative coherence, character consistency, and thematic development across generated text. Fine-tuning captures Claude's approach to balancing creativity with clarity.
Unique: Fine-tuned on Claude's creative outputs, which balance imaginative storytelling with clarity and coherence, producing more readable creative content than models trained purely on internet text
vs alternatives: Better prose quality and narrative coherence than base language models, but less specialized than models fine-tuned specifically on creative writing datasets or with explicit story structure training