Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Apodex 1.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Apodex 1.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Updated October 9, 2026. Rank says Apodex 1.1 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Apodex 1.1 has the higher public point estimate, 50.64 versus 41.7. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 3
- Apodex 1.1 only
- 7
- Muse Glimmer 30B only
- 11
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Estimated: Apodex 1.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Apodex 1.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Not enough matched evidence
A complete context comparison is not sourced.
Confidence: limitedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Muse Glimmer 30B does not fit this workload in one request. Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-ratesRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
42.7Apodex 1.131.9Muse Glimmer 30B
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Apodex 1.1 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
7 Apodex 1.1 only
3 Shared
11 Muse Glimmer 30B only
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 1.7Apodex 1.1:77.7%Muse Glimmer 30B:76%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Apodex 1.1
- 53.5
- Supported · #59/174
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 42.8
- Supported · #94/174
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Apodex 1.1 leads · intervals overlap
Agentic
Directional only- Apodex 1.1
- 45.4
- Estimated · #52/122
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 24.9
- Estimated · #96/122
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Apodex 1.1
- 42.7
- Estimated · #59/146
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 31.9
- Estimated · #89/146
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- 76.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 79.6
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- 77.7
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 47.4
- #41/49
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 77.0
- #55/125
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 75.4
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Apodex 1.1 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 53.5Supported · #59/174 | 42.8Supported · #94/174 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 0 public rows | Apodex 1.1 leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 45.4Estimated · #52/122 | 24.9Estimated · #96/122 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 42.7Estimated · #59/146 | 31.9Estimated · #89/146 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 76.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 79.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 77.7Unranked · 1 rankable row | 47.4#41/49 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 77.0#55/125 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 75.4Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Apodex 1.1
- API rate not published
- Fit state unavailable
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Apodex 1.1
- API rate not published
- Fit state unavailable
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Apodex 1.1
- API rate not published
- Fit state unavailable
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Muse Glimmer 30B does not fit this workload in one request. Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationApodex 1.1Muse Glimmer 30B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Apodex 1.1
N/A
Muse Glimmer 30B
131K
API model ID
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Apodex 1.1
No comparable hosted API rate
Apodex pricingMuse Glimmer 30B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Apodex 1.1
Reasoning
Muse Glimmer 30B
Reasoning
Weight access
Apodex 1.1
Proprietary
Muse Glimmer 30B
Open Weight
License
Apodex 1.1
Proprietary
Muse Glimmer 30B
Open Weight
Release date
Apodex 1.1
2026-08-24
Muse Glimmer 30B
2026-08-10
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Apodex 1.1 has the higher public point estimate, 50.64 versus 41.7. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- A complete documented context comparison is not available.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Apodex 1.1 has the higher public point estimate, 50.64 versus 41.7. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Apodex 1.1 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Apodex 1.1 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 42.7 to 31.9. Apodex 1.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Apodex 1.1 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Apodex 1.1 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 45.4 to 24.9. Apodex 1.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Apodex 1.1 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Apodex 1.1 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence21 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Apodex 1.170.8%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Apodex 1.156.1%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Apodex 1.138.5%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Apodex 1.192.4%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B74.6%SourceApodex 1.1 leads this result
MCP Atlas
Apodex 1.1—Muse Glimmer 30B75.5%SourceNot directly comparable
skillsBench
Apodex 1.1—Muse Glimmer 30B44.3%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Apodex 1.1—Muse Glimmer 30B65.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Apodex 1.170.8%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B51.7%SourceApodex 1.1 leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
Apodex 1.177.7%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B76%SourceApodex 1.1 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Apodex 1.1—Muse Glimmer 30B51.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Apodex 1.1—Muse Glimmer 30B43.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Knowledge
Instruction following
IFBench
Apodex 1.1—Muse Glimmer 30B77%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
21 public results · 3 shared
Watch Apodex 1.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,500+ readers.
Last updated October 9, 2026