Ember-1 vs Muse Glimmer-30B
Ember-1 leads the LLM Stats Score 43.1 to 34.5. Muse Glimmer-30B is 11.4x cheaper per token.
Fireworks AI · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Ember-1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.1 to 34.5, ranking #51 overall.
In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ember-1 wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Muse Glimmer-30B is roughly 11.4x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Ember-1 also accepts a larger context window (1,040,000 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 Ember-1
- overall performance matters — it scores 43.1 and ranks #51 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 2 exact shared results
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,040,000 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026
Choose Muse Glimmer-30B
- cost matters — it's about 11.4x 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
4 reported for Ember-1 · 25 for Muse Glimmer-30B
Ember-1 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.1), while Muse Glimmer-30B is better at 0 benchmarks.
Ember-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, Ember-1 ($3.00/1M tokens) is 10.0x more expensive than Muse Glimmer-30B ($0.30/1M tokens).
For output processing, Ember-1 ($15.00/1M tokens) is 12.5x more expensive than Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Ember-1 is more expensive than Muse Glimmer-30B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Ember-1 has 2750.4B more parameters than Muse Glimmer-30B, making it 9291.9% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Ember-1 accepts 1,040,000 input tokens compared to Muse Glimmer-30B's 131,072 tokens. Only Muse Glimmer-30B specifies output context (131,072 tokens).
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Muse Glimmer-30B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ember-1 does not.
Muse Glimmer-30B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Ember-1
Muse Glimmer-30B
License
Usage and distribution terms
Ember-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
Ember-1 was released on 2026-09-23, while Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10.
Ember-1 is 1 month newer than Muse Glimmer-30B.
Sep 23, 2026
2 weeks ago
1mo 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 Ember-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 Ember-1's cutoff date.
—
Jan 2026
Provider Availability
Ember-1 is available from Fireworks. Muse Glimmer-30B is available from DeepInfra.
Ember-1
Muse Glimmer-30B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Ember-1 and Muse Glimmer-30B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Ember-1 vs Muse Glimmer-30B.