The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Glimmer-30B

Claude Fable 5 leads the LLM Stats Score 55.9 to 35.5.

Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 55.9 to 35.5, ranking #4 overall.

In the 5 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5 wins 5; 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

  • overall performance matters — it scores 55.9 and ranks #4 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 5 of 5 exact shared results

Choose Muse Glimmer-30B

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5
Anthropic
Muse Glimmer-30B
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
55.9
#4
35.5
#76
Reasoning
53.3
#6
34.7
#77
Coding
48.7
#2
23.8
#65
Agents
42.5
#2
18.5
#62
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
5 of 5
0 of 5
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

4 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5
Muse Glimmer-30B
Math
41.8#7
28.3#84
Vision
37.0#7
20.4#61
Tool use
25.1#29
18.6#59
Multimodal
31.8#18
23.2#47
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

18 reported for Claude Fable 5 · 25 for Muse Glimmer-30B

5 shared

Claude Fable 5 outperforms in 5 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, OSWorld-Verified, SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.1), while Muse Glimmer-30B is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Aug 28 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 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Fable 5 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Meta
Muse Glimmer-30B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Fable 5 and Muse Glimmer-30B support multimodal inputs.

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

Claude Fable 5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Muse Glimmer-30B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5 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

Proprietary

Closed source

Muse Glimmer-30B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5 was released on 2026-06-09, while Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10.

Muse Glimmer-30B is 2 months newer than Claude Fable 5.

Claude Fable 5

Jun 9, 2026

2 months ago

Muse Glimmer-30B

Aug 10, 2026

2 weeks ago

2mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Muse Glimmer-30B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-04, while Claude Fable 5'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's cutoff date.

Claude Fable 5

—

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 and Muse Glimmer-30B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5
✓ Preferred
Muse Glimmer-30B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Glimmer-30B.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Glimmer-30B?

Claude Fable 5 leads the LLM Stats Score 55.9 to 35.5. Claude Fable 5 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 compare to Muse Glimmer-30B in benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5 scores SWE-Bench Verified: 95.0%, FrontierSWE: 90.0%, OSWorld-Verified: 85.0%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 84.3%, SWE-Bench Pro: 80.0%. 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 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Claude Fable 5 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 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (55.9 vs 35.5), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Claude Fable 5 is developed by Anthropic and Muse Glimmer-30B is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons