Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Glimmer-30B
Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 55.7 to 35.0. Muse Glimmer-30B is 38.1x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 55.7 to 35.0, 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.
On price, Muse Glimmer-30B is roughly 38.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Claude Fable 5.1 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Claude Fable 5.1
- overall performance matters — it scores 55.7 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 process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026
Choose Muse Glimmer-30B
- cost matters — it's about 38.1x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 25 for Muse Glimmer-30B
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.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 33.3x more expensive than Muse Glimmer-30B ($0.30/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 41.7x more expensive than Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.1 is more expensive than Muse Glimmer-30B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Claude Fable 5.1 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Muse Glimmer-30B's 131,072 tokens. Muse Glimmer-30B can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Claude Fable 5.1 is limited to 128,000 tokens.
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
Muse Glimmer-30B
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.
Proprietary
Closed source
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.
Sep 1, 2026
2 weeks ago
3w newerAug 10, 2026
1 months 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.
—
Jan 2026
Provider Availability
Claude Fable 5.1 is available from Anthropic. Muse Glimmer-30B is available from DeepInfra.
Claude Fable 5.1
Muse Glimmer-30B
Outputs Comparison
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.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Glimmer-30B.