Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
o3-mini
o3-mini has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Muse Glimmer 30B vs o3-mini
Updated September 24, 2026. Rank says Muse Glimmer 30B 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
Muse Glimmer 30B has the higher public score estimate, 41.73 versus 40.16, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 1
- Muse Glimmer 30B only
- 13
- o3-mini only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Muse Glimmer 30B · Supported: o3-miniHow 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
O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
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. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini 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.
36.3Muse Glimmer 30B—o3-mini
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.7
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
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.
13 Muse Glimmer 30B only
1 Shared
4 o3-mini only
1 category rests 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 26.7Muse Glimmer 30B:76%o3-mini:49.3%
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.
Knowledge
Directional only- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 43.9
- Estimated · #75/158
- o3-mini
- 35.3
- Supported · #109/158
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 27.6
- Estimated · #72/105
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 36.3
- Estimated · #69/135
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 79.3
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 46.3
- #42/50
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Not ranked
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 77.7
- #55/124
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Muse Glimmer 30B
- 75.4
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Muse Glimmer 30B | o3-mini | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 43.9Estimated · #75/158 | 35.3Supported · #109/158 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 27.6Estimated · #72/105 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 36.3Estimated · #69/135 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 79.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 46.3#42/50 | Not ranked | 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 | 77.7#55/124 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 75.4Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 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
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- o3-mini
- $0.0033
- Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B 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
- o3-mini
- $0.0682
- 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
- Muse Glimmer 30B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- o3-mini
- $0.286
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Muse Glimmer 30B does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini 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.
SpecificationMuse Glimmer 30Bo3-mini
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Muse Glimmer 30B
131K
o3-mini
200K
API model ID
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
o3-mini
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
o3-mini
Not published
Documented inputs
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Provider availability
Muse Glimmer 30B
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Muse Glimmer 30B
Reasoning
o3-mini
Reasoning
Weight access
Muse Glimmer 30B
Open Weight
o3-mini
Proprietary
License
Muse Glimmer 30B
Open Weight
o3-mini
Proprietary
Release date
Muse Glimmer 30B
2026-08-10
o3-mini
2025-01-31
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 estimate, 41.73 versus 40.16, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- o3-mini has the larger documented window (200K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Muse Glimmer 30B or o3-mini?
Muse Glimmer 30B has the higher public score estimate, 41.73 versus 40.16, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Muse Glimmer 30B or o3-mini?
O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Muse Glimmer 30B or o3-mini?
O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Muse Glimmer 30B or o3-mini?
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 o3-mini?
o3-mini has the larger documented context window: 200K, 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 evidence18 rows
Agentic
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
Muse Glimmer 30B51.2%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Muse Glimmer 30B76%Sourceo3-mini49.3%SourceMuse Glimmer 30B leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Muse Glimmer 30B51.7%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Muse Glimmer 30B43.6%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
Knowledge
Instruction following
Math
18 public results · 1 shared
Watch Muse Glimmer 30B vs o3-mini
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