Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Updated September 24, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score, 68.56 versus 41.73, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Model A
Anthropic
68.56/100
Estimated · Public rank #17
90% interval 57.0–80.1
- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 16
- Muse Glimmer 30B only
- 9
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Muse Glimmer 30BHow 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.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Muse Glimmer 30B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Muse Glimmer 30B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository 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.
57.8Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)36.3Muse Glimmer 30B
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.
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.
16 Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
5 Shared
9 Muse Glimmer 30B only
4 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 ProCoding
Normalized gap 13.1Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive):64.3%Muse Glimmer 30B:51.2%CharXivMultimodal
Normalized gap 12.2Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive):91%Muse Glimmer 30B:78.8%OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic
Normalized gap 12.1Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive):78%Muse Glimmer 30B:65.9%SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 11.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive):87.6%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 v5.7 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.
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 59.1
- Supported · #19/105
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 27.6
- Estimated · #72/105
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 7 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 57.8
- Estimated · #20/135
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 36.3
- Estimated · #69/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 3 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 50.1
- #38/50
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 46.3
- #42/50
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 64.1
- Estimated · #27/158
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 43.9
- Estimated · #75/158
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 53.6
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 79.3
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 77.7
- #55/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 75.4
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Muse Glimmer 30B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 59.1Supported · #19/105 | 27.6Estimated · #72/105 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 7 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 57.8Estimated · #20/135 | 36.3Estimated · #69/135 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 3 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 50.1#38/50 | 46.3#42/50 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 64.1Estimated · #27/158 | 43.9Estimated · #75/158 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 53.6Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 79.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 77.7#55/124 | 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 v5.7) 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
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- 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. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input 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.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Muse Glimmer 30B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
1M
Muse Glimmer 30B
131K
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
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.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not published
Muse Glimmer 30B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Reasoning
Muse Glimmer 30B
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Muse Glimmer 30B
Open Weight
License
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Muse Glimmer 30B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
2026-04-16
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
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score, 68.56 versus 41.73, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score, 68.56 versus 41.73, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scores higher for coding on the public lane, 57.8 to 36.3. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 59.1 to 27.6. Muse Glimmer 30B is 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, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 131K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence30 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)79.3%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)77.3%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B75.5%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B65.9%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.1%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)18.2%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)45.9%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Muse Glimmer 30B74.6%SourceNot directly comparable
skillsBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Muse Glimmer 30B44.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)87.6%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B76%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)64.3%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B51.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Muse Glimmer 30B51.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Muse Glimmer 30B43.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.6%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)91%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B78.8%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)82.1%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Muse Glimmer 30B75.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Muse Glimmer 30B75.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Muse Glimmer 30B74%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)54.7%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)46.9%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Muse Glimmer 30B77%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
30 public results · 5 shared
Watch Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Muse Glimmer 30B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 24, 2026