The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Glimmer-30B

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.8 to 35.1.

Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 56.8 to 35.1, ranking #2 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5.1 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Fable 5.1

  • overall performance matters — it scores 56.8 and ranks #2 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Muse Glimmer-30B

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
Muse Glimmer-30B
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
56.8
#2
35.1
#83
Reasoning
53.9
#5
34.5
#85
Coding
36.0
#23
22.6
#75
Agents
41.9
#2
16.9
#70
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$10.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.1
Muse Glimmer-30B
Vision
41.5#2
20.0#66
Tool use
30.7#12
17.5#70
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 25 for Muse Glimmer-30B

1 shared

Claude Fable 5.1 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while Muse Glimmer-30B is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sat Sep 05 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Fable 5.1 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Fable 5.1 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Meta
Muse Glimmer-30B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Sat Sep 05 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Glimmer-30B support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Fable 5.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Muse Glimmer-30B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Muse Glimmer-30B uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Closed source

Muse Glimmer-30B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10.

Claude Fable 5.1 is 1 month newer than Muse Glimmer-30B.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

4 days ago

3w newer
Muse Glimmer-30B

Aug 10, 2026

3 weeks ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Muse Glimmer-30B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-04, while Claude Fable 5.1's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Muse Glimmer-30B's training data extends to 2026-01-04, but cannot make a direct comparison without Claude Fable 5.1's cutoff date.

Claude Fable 5.1

—

Muse Glimmer-30B

Jan 2026

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Glimmer-30B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
Muse Glimmer-30B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Glimmer-30B.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Glimmer-30B?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.8 to 35.1. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and Muse Glimmer-30B is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Fable 5.1 compare to Muse Glimmer-30B in benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores OSWorld 2.0: 77.9%, CursorBench v3.2: 73.4%, Humanity's Last Exam: 65.0%, GDPval-AA: 61.8%, Terminal-Bench 4.0: 55.8%. Muse Glimmer-30B scores AIME 2026: 94.7%, Siren AgentDojo Utility: 94.2%, GPQA: 83.5%, AA-LCR: 80.0%, CharXiv-R: 78.8%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and Muse Glimmer-30B supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (56.8 vs 35.1), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and Muse Glimmer-30B is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons