Math
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 97.1
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 94.7
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Inkling leads
Model comparison
Inkling vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Updated August 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
7 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Inkling
Inkling has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Chat 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-rates
Cache-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. Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository 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
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
8 Inkling only
7 Shared
7 Muse Glimmer 30B only
- Shared results
- 7
- Inkling only
- 8
- Muse Glimmer 30B only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 76.5
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 75.7
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Inkling leads
Instruction following
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 79.8
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 77.0
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Inkling leads
Coding
Directional only- Inkling
- 68.6
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 57.8
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Inkling
- 69.4
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 65.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Inkling
- 51.6
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling | Muse Glimmer 30B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | 97.1 | 94.7 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Inkling leads |
| Multimodal | 76.5 | 75.7 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Inkling leads |
| Instruction following | 79.8 | 77.0 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Inkling leads |
| Coding | 68.6 | 57.8 | Directional only2 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 69.4 | 65.9 | Not comparable2 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 51.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
CharXiv
Multimodal
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
IFBench
Instruction following
AIME26
Math
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
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
- Inkling
- $0.00421
- 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
- Inkling
- $0.10754
- 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
- Inkling
- $0.159
- Fits in one request
- 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. Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationInklingMuse Glimmer 30B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling
1M
Muse Glimmer 30B
131K
API model ID
Inkling
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.
Inkling
$0.374 per 1M cached input tokens
Muse Glimmer 30B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling
Not sourced
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling
Hybrid
Muse Glimmer 30B
Reasoning
Weight access
Inkling
Open Weight
Muse Glimmer 30B
Open Weight
License
Inkling
Open Weight
Muse Glimmer 30B
Open Weight
Release date
Inkling
2026-07-15
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Inkling has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence22 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Inkling77.1%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Inkling74.1%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B75.5%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B leads this result
DeepSearchQA
Inkling—Muse Glimmer 30B74.6%SourceNot directly comparable
skillsBench
Inkling—Muse Glimmer 30B44.3%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Inkling—Muse Glimmer 30B65.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling77.6%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B76%SourceInkling leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Inkling54.3%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B51.2%SourceInkling leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Inkling—Muse Glimmer 30B51.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Inkling—Muse Glimmer 30B43.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Inkling73.5%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B74%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B leads this result
CharXiv
Inkling82%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B78.8%SourceInkling leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Inkling78.1%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Inkling—Muse Glimmer 30B75.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Inkling—Muse Glimmer 30B75.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling or Muse Glimmer 30B?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Muse Glimmer 30B?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Muse Glimmer 30B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Inkling 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, Inkling or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Inkling has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 131K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 10, 2026
Watch Inkling 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.