Multimodal
Like-for-like- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 75.7
- Muse Spark
- 82.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Muse Spark leads
Model comparison
Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark
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.
6 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
Muse Spark
Muse Spark 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. Muse Spark 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 Muse Glimmer 30B only
6 Shared
18 Muse Spark only
- Shared results
- 6
- Muse Glimmer 30B only
- 8
- Muse Spark only
- 18
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 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.
Coding
Directional only- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 57.8
- Muse Spark
- 67.8
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 65.9
- Muse Spark
- 59.0
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- 42.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- 50.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 94.7
- Muse Spark
- 32.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 77.0
- Muse Spark
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Muse Glimmer 30B | Muse Spark | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 75.7 | 82.5 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Muse Spark leads |
| Coding | 57.8 | 67.8 | Directional only3 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 65.9 | 59.0 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 42.5 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 50.4 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 94.7 | 32.9 | Not comparable1 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 77.0 | Not measured | Not comparable1 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
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
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
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Muse Spark
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Muse Spark
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Muse Spark
- API rate not published
- Fits 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. Muse Spark 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.
SpecificationMuse Glimmer 30BMuse Spark
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Muse Glimmer 30B
131K
Muse Spark
262K
API model ID
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Muse Glimmer 30B
No comparable hosted API rate
Muse Spark
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Provider availability
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Muse Glimmer 30B
Reasoning
Muse Spark
Reasoning
Weight access
Muse Glimmer 30B
Open Weight
Muse Spark
Proprietary
License
Muse Glimmer 30B
Open Weight
Muse Spark
Proprietary
Release date
Muse Glimmer 30B
2026-08-10
Muse Spark
2026-04-08
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Meta as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- 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
- Muse Spark has the larger documented window (262K).
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 evidence32 rows
Agentic
MCP Atlas
Muse Glimmer 30B75.5%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Muse Glimmer 30B74.6%SourceMuse Spark74.8%SourceMuse Spark leads this result
skillsBench
Muse Glimmer 30B44.3%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Muse Glimmer 30B65.9%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark59%SourceNot directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark91.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark43.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark63.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
Muse Glimmer 30B51.2%SourceMuse Spark52.4%SourceMuse Spark leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
Muse Glimmer 30B76%SourceMuse Spark77.4%SourceMuse Spark leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Muse Glimmer 30B51.7%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Muse Glimmer 30B43.6%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pro
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark80.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark19.67%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
ARC-AGI-2
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark42.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark89.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark50.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark42.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark42.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark52.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
CharXiv
Muse Glimmer 30B78.8%SourceMuse Spark86.4%SourceMuse Spark leads this result
ScreenSpot Pro
Muse Glimmer 30B75.4%SourceMuse Spark84.1%SourceMuse Spark leads this result
OmniDocBench 1.5
Muse Glimmer 30B75.8%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Muse Glimmer 30B74%SourceMuse Spark80.4%SourceMuse Spark leads this result
ERQA
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark71.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark33.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Muse Glimmer 30B—Muse Spark78.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Muse Glimmer 30B77%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Muse Glimmer 30B or Muse Spark?
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, Muse Glimmer 30B or Muse Spark?
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, Muse Glimmer 30B or Muse Spark?
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, Muse Glimmer 30B or Muse Spark?
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, Muse Glimmer 30B or Muse Spark?
Muse Spark has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 131K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 10, 2026
Watch Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.