Instruction following
Like-for-like- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 77.0
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 72.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Muse Glimmer 30B leads
Model comparison
Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Updated August 11, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
NVIDIA
26.9/100
Estimated · Public rank #204
90% interval 17.1–36.8
Muse Glimmer 30B has the higher public score, 52.31 versus 26.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
3 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
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 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. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 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.
11 Muse Glimmer 30B only
3 Shared
10 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
- Shared results
- 3
- Muse Glimmer 30B only
- 11
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
- 10
- 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
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 42.1
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 65.9
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 29.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 80.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 94.7
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 75.7
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Muse Glimmer 30B | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction following | 77.0 | 72.9 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Muse Glimmer 30B leads |
| Coding | 57.8 | 42.1 | Directional only3 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 65.9 | 29.1 | Not comparable1 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 80.5 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 94.7 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 75.7 | Not measured | Not comparable2 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.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Muse Glimmer 30B: 76%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 52.8%Normalized gap 23.2Muse Glimmer 30B source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 sourceSciCode
Coding
Muse Glimmer 30B: 43.6%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 31.4%Normalized gap 12.2Muse Glimmer 30B source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 sourceIFBench
Instruction following
Muse Glimmer 30B: 77%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 72.9%Normalized gap 4.1Muse Glimmer 30B source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 source
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
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 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
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 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
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- 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. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 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 30BNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Muse Glimmer 30B
131K
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
API model ID
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
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
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
No comparable hosted API rate
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning model cardDocumented inputs
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Provider availability
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Muse Glimmer 30B
Reasoning
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Reasoning
Weight access
Muse Glimmer 30B
Open Weight
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
License
Muse Glimmer 30B
Open Weight
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
Release date
Muse Glimmer 30B
2026-08-10
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
2026-08-11
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
- Muse Glimmer 30B has the higher public score, 52.31 versus 26.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 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 evidence24 rows
Agentic
MCP Atlas
Muse Glimmer 30B75.5%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Muse Glimmer 30B74.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Muse Glimmer 30B44.3%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Muse Glimmer 30B65.9%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Muse Glimmer 30B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceNot directly comparable
PinchBench
Muse Glimmer 30B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP483.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Muse Glimmer 30B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.8%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Muse Glimmer 30B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP49.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
Muse Glimmer 30B51.2%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Muse Glimmer 30B76%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP452.8%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Muse Glimmer 30B51.7%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Muse Glimmer 30B43.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP431.4%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Muse Glimmer 30B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Muse Glimmer 30B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Muse Glimmer 30B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Muse Glimmer 30B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Muse Glimmer 30B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP410.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Muse Glimmer 30B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP481.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Muse Glimmer 30B94.7%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
CharXiv
Muse Glimmer 30B78.8%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Muse Glimmer 30B75.4%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Muse Glimmer 30B75.8%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Muse Glimmer 30B74%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Muse Glimmer 30B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Muse Glimmer 30B has the higher public score, 52.31 versus 26.93, 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, Muse Glimmer 30B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 131K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 11, 2026
Watch Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.