The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs Muse Glimmer-30B

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.2 to 35.2. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Muse Glimmer-30B cost the same.

DeepSeek · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.2 to 35.2, ranking #15 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 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 DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.2 and ranks #15 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 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

Choose Muse Glimmer-30B

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
DeepSeek
Muse Glimmer-30B
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.2
#15
35.2
#106
Reasoning
48.8
#18
34.7
#104
Coding
39.3
#14
22.5
#99
Agents
38.7
#8
17.3
#96
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$0.30 / M
$0.30 / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
$1.20 / M
Context window
1,048,576
131,072

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

4 shared
Index
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Muse Glimmer-30B
Math
31.8#69
28.4#100
Vision
32.3#25
20.4#85
Tool use
31.3#6
19.8#72
Multimodal
35.0#14
23.5#70
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 · 32 for Muse Glimmer-30B

1 shared

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while Muse Glimmer-30B is better at 0 benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

For input processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($0.30/1M tokens) costs the same as Muse Glimmer-30B ($0.30/1M tokens).

For output processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($1.20/1M tokens) costs the same as Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Muse Glimmer-30B cost the same.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerDeepSeek
Meta
Muse Glimmer-30B
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

733.6B diff

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 has 733.6B more parameters than Muse Glimmer-30B, making it 2478.4% larger.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
763.2Bparameters
Meta
Muse Glimmer-30B
29.6Bparameters
763.2B
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
29.6B
Muse Glimmer-30B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Muse Glimmer-30B's 131,072 tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 can generate longer responses up to 393,216 tokens, while Muse Glimmer-30B is limited to 131,072 tokens.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
Meta
Muse Glimmer-30B
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Muse Glimmer-30B support multimodal inputs.

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

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Muse Glimmer-30B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is licensed under MIT, while Muse Glimmer-30B uses Apache 2.0.

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

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

MIT

Open weights

Muse Glimmer-30B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 was released on 2026-10-17, while Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 2 months newer than Muse Glimmer-30B.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Oct 17, 2026

5 days ago

2mo newer
Muse Glimmer-30B

Aug 10, 2026

2 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Muse Glimmer-30B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-04, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017'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 DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017's cutoff date.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

—

Muse Glimmer-30B

Jan 2026

Provider Availability

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is available from DeepSeek. Muse Glimmer-30B is available from DeepInfra.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M

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 DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Muse Glimmer-30B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
✓ Preferred
Muse Glimmer-30B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs Muse Glimmer-30B.

Which is better, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 or Muse Glimmer-30B?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.2 to 35.2. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is made by DeepSeek 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 DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 compare to Muse Glimmer-30B in benchmarks?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores BabyVision: 92.5%, Chartography: 83.0%, DeepSWE 1.1: 77.0%, NL2Repo: 68.2%, AutomationBench: 60.5%. Muse Glimmer-30B scores AIME 2026: 94.7%, Siren AgentDojo Utility: 94.2%, Tau2 Telecom: 94.1%, PinchBench: 90.5%, Tau2 Retail: 87.1%.

Is DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 cheaper than Muse Glimmer-30B?

Both models cost $0.30 per million input tokens.

What are the context window sizes for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 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 DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.2 vs 35.2), context window (1.0M vs 131K), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is developed by DeepSeek and Muse Glimmer-30B is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons