The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer-30B

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 34.9. Muse Glimmer-30B is 15.2x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 34.9, ranking #1 overall.

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

On price, Muse Glimmer-30B is roughly 15.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Opus 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 Opus 5.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 59.7 and ranks #1 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 15.2x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic
Muse Glimmer-30B
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
59.7
#1
34.9
#96
Reasoning
57.8
#1
34.3
#94
Coding
51.7
#1
22.1
#88
Agents
44.5
#2
16.3
#84
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$4.00 / M
$0.30 / M
Output price
$20.00 / 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 Opus 5.5
Muse Glimmer-30B
Math
42.5#5
28.4#93
Vision
42.8#1
20.5#73
Tool use
32.9#2
13.7#100
Multimodal
42.5#1
23.9#59
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

31 reported for Claude Opus 5.5 · 25 for Muse Glimmer-30B

1 shared

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

Claude Opus 5.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed Sep 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Muse Glimmer-30B costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 5.5 ($4.00/1M tokens) is 13.3x more expensive than Muse Glimmer-30B ($0.30/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 5.5 ($20.00/1M tokens) is 16.7x more expensive than Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens).

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

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Sep 23 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 5.5
Input tokens$4.00
Output tokens$20.00
Best providerAnthropic
Meta
Muse Glimmer-30B
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

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

Anthropic
Claude Opus 5.5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Meta
Muse Glimmer-30B
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Wed Sep 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

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

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

Claude Opus 5.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Muse Glimmer-30B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 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 Opus 5.5

Proprietary

Closed source

Muse Glimmer-30B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 5.5 was released on 2026-09-22, while Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10.

Claude Opus 5.5 is 1 month newer than Muse Glimmer-30B.

Claude Opus 5.5

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

1mo newer
Muse Glimmer-30B

Aug 10, 2026

1 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

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

Claude Opus 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 Opus 5.5

Jun 2026

5 mo newer
Muse Glimmer-30B

Jan 2026

Provider Availability

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

Claude Opus 5.5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $4.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $20.00/1M

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?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

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

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

FAQ

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

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

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 34.9. Claude Opus 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 Opus 5.5 compare to Muse Glimmer-30B in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores BenchCAD (with Python tool): 96.2%, Global-MMLU: 94.3%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 93.9%, MILU: 93.1%, ArXivMath: 91.2%. 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 Opus 5.5 cheaper than Muse Glimmer-30B?

Muse Glimmer-30B is 13.3x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4.00/M input and $20.00/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 Opus 5.5 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Claude Opus 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 Opus 5.5 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (59.7 vs 34.9), context window (1.0M vs 131K), input pricing ($4.00 vs $0.30/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

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

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

Related comparisons