The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer-30B

Claude Haiku 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 34.5. Claude Haiku 5.5 is 2.6x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Haiku 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 34.5, ranking #19 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Haiku 5.5 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Claude Haiku 5.5 is roughly 2.6x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Haiku 5.5 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 Haiku 5.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 50.0 and ranks #19 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
  • cost matters — it's about 2.6x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 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 Haiku 5.5
Anthropic
Muse Glimmer-30B
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
50.0
#19
34.5
#104
Reasoning
47.2
#27
34.0
#103
Coding
40.2
#13
21.6
#96
Agents
33.3
#28
15.9
#94
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$0.10 / M
$0.30 / M
Output price
$0.50 / M
$1.20 / M
Context window
1,000,000
131,072

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

4 shared
Index
Claude Haiku 5.5
Muse Glimmer-30B
Math
25.7#110
28.2#98
Vision
30.4#33
20.5#77
Tool use
20.3#59
13.6#107
Multimodal
31.4#27
23.6#63
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

36 reported for Claude Haiku 5.5 · 25 for Muse Glimmer-30B

1 shared

Claude Haiku 5.5 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (SWE-Bench Pro), while Muse Glimmer-30B is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Haiku 5.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Claude Haiku 5.5 costs less

For input processing, Claude Haiku 5.5 ($0.10/1M tokens) is 3.0x cheaper than Muse Glimmer-30B ($0.30/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Haiku 5.5 ($0.50/1M tokens) is 2.4x cheaper than Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Muse Glimmer-30B is more expensive than Claude Haiku 5.5.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Haiku 5.5
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.50
Best providerAnthropic
Meta
Muse Glimmer-30B
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Haiku 5.5 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 Haiku 5.5 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Haiku 5.5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Meta
Muse Glimmer-30B
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Glimmer-30B support multimodal inputs.

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

Claude Haiku 5.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Muse Glimmer-30B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Haiku 5.5 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 Haiku 5.5

Proprietary

Closed source

Muse Glimmer-30B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Haiku 5.5 was released on 2026-10-07, while Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10.

Claude Haiku 5.5 is 2 months newer than Muse Glimmer-30B.

Claude Haiku 5.5

Oct 7, 2026

1 days ago

1mo newer
Muse Glimmer-30B

Aug 10, 2026

1 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Haiku 5.5 has a knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Muse Glimmer-30B has a cutoff of 2026-01-04.

Claude Haiku 5.5 has more recent training data (up to 2026-06-01), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to Muse Glimmer-30B (2026-01-04).

Claude Haiku 5.5

Jun 2026

5 mo newer
Muse Glimmer-30B

Jan 2026

Provider Availability

Claude Haiku 5.5 is available from Anthropic. Muse Glimmer-30B is available from DeepInfra.

Claude Haiku 5.5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M

Muse Glimmer-30B

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Glimmer-30B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Haiku 5.5
✓ Preferred
Muse Glimmer-30B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer-30B.

Which is better, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Glimmer-30B?

Claude Haiku 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 34.5. Claude Haiku 5.5 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 Haiku 5.5 compare to Muse Glimmer-30B in benchmarks?

Claude Haiku 5.5 scores Global-MMLU: 87.8%, MILU: 87.6%, BenchCAD (with Python tool): 87.0%, Chartography: 86.2%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 83.7%. Muse Glimmer-30B scores AIME 2026: 94.7%, Siren AgentDojo Utility: 94.2%, GPQA: 83.5%, AA-LCR: 80.0%, CharXiv-R: 78.8%.

Is Claude Haiku 5.5 cheaper than Muse Glimmer-30B?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is 3.0x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Haiku 5.5 costs $0.10/M input and $0.50/M output via anthropic. Muse Glimmer-30B costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Claude Haiku 5.5 supports 1.0M tokens and Muse Glimmer-30B supports 131K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (50.0 vs 34.5), context window (1.0M vs 131K), input pricing ($0.10 vs $0.30/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is developed by Anthropic and Muse Glimmer-30B is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons