The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

GLM-5.2 vs Muse Glimmer-30B

GLM-5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 46.5 to 35.5.

Zhipu AI · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

GLM-5.2 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 46.5 to 35.5, ranking #22 overall.

In the 6 individual benchmarks reported for both models, GLM-5.2 wins 6; 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 GLM-5.2

  • overall performance matters — it scores 46.5 and ranks #22 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 6 of 6 exact shared results

Choose Muse Glimmer-30B

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
46.5
#22
35.5
#76
45.8
#22
34.7
#77
38.1
#21
23.8
#65
32.0
#25
18.5
#62
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
6 of 6
0 of 6
Input price
$0.95 / M
— / M
Output price
$3.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
GLM-5.2
Muse Glimmer-30B
41.8#5
28.3#84
23.6#36
18.6#59
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

19 reported for GLM-5.2 · 25 for Muse Glimmer-30B

6 shared

GLM-5.2 outperforms in 6 benchmarks (AIME 2026, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, MCP Atlas, SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1), while Muse Glimmer-30B is better at 0 benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

723.4B diff

GLM-5.2 has 723.4B more parameters than Muse Glimmer-30B, making it 2443.9% larger.

Zhipu AI
GLM-5.2
753.0Bparameters
Meta
Muse Glimmer-30B
29.6Bparameters
753.0B
GLM-5.2
29.6B
Muse Glimmer-30B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only GLM-5.2 specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens). Only GLM-5.2 specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

Zhipu AI
GLM-5.2
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Meta
Muse Glimmer-30B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Muse Glimmer-30B supports multimodal inputs, whereas GLM-5.2 does not.

Muse Glimmer-30B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

GLM-5.2

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Muse Glimmer-30B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

GLM-5.2 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.

GLM-5.2

MIT

Open weights

Muse Glimmer-30B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

GLM-5.2 was released on 2026-06-16, while Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10.

Muse Glimmer-30B is 2 months newer than GLM-5.2.

GLM-5.2

Jun 16, 2026

2 months ago

Muse Glimmer-30B

Aug 10, 2026

2 weeks ago

1mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Muse Glimmer-30B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-04, while GLM-5.2'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 GLM-5.2's cutoff date.

GLM-5.2

Muse Glimmer-30B

Jan 2026

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against GLM-5.2 and Muse Glimmer-30B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

GLM-5.2
✓ Preferred
Muse Glimmer-30B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about GLM-5.2 vs Muse Glimmer-30B.

Which is better, GLM-5.2 or Muse Glimmer-30B?

GLM-5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 46.5 to 35.5. GLM-5.2 is made by Zhipu AI 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 GLM-5.2 compare to Muse Glimmer-30B in benchmarks?

GLM-5.2 scores AIME 2026: 99.2%, HMMT 2025: 94.4%, HMMT Feb 26: 92.5%, GPQA: 91.2%, IMO-AnswerBench: 91.0%. 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 GLM-5.2 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

GLM-5.2 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 GLM-5.2 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (46.5 vs 35.5), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes GLM-5.2 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

GLM-5.2 is developed by Zhipu AI and Muse Glimmer-30B is developed by Meta.