The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Laguna S 2.1 vs Muse Glimmer-30B

Laguna S 2.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 41.4 to 35.5.

Poolside · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Laguna S 2.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 41.4 to 35.5, ranking #43 overall.

In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Laguna S 2.1 wins 2; 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 Laguna S 2.1

  • overall performance matters — it scores 41.4 and ranks #43 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

Choose Muse Glimmer-30B

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Laguna S 2.1
Poolside
Muse Glimmer-30B
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
41.4
#43
35.5
#76
Reasoning
41.5
#40
34.7
#77
Coding
33.1
#37
23.8
#65
Agents
25.7
#43
18.5
#62
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
2 of 2
0 of 2
Input price
$0.10 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.20 / M
— / M
Context window
1,048,576
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Laguna S 2.1
Muse Glimmer-30B
Tool use
18.9#56
18.6#59
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

6 reported for Laguna S 2.1 · 25 for Muse Glimmer-30B

2 shared

Laguna S 2.1 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1), while Muse Glimmer-30B is better at 0 benchmarks.

Laguna S 2.1 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

88.4B diff

Laguna S 2.1 has 88.4B more parameters than Muse Glimmer-30B, making it 298.6% larger.

Poolside
Laguna S 2.1
118.0Bparameters
Meta
Muse Glimmer-30B
29.6Bparameters
118.0B
Laguna S 2.1
29.6B
Muse Glimmer-30B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Laguna S 2.1 specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens).

Poolside
Laguna S 2.1
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- 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 Laguna S 2.1 does not.

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

Laguna S 2.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Muse Glimmer-30B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Laguna S 2.1 is licensed under OpenMDW License v1.1, while Muse Glimmer-30B uses Apache 2.0.

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

Laguna S 2.1

OpenMDW License v1.1

Open weights

Muse Glimmer-30B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Laguna S 2.1 was released on 2026-07-21, while Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10.

Muse Glimmer-30B is 1 month newer than Laguna S 2.1.

Laguna S 2.1

Jul 21, 2026

1 months ago

Muse Glimmer-30B

Aug 10, 2026

2 weeks ago

2w newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Muse Glimmer-30B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-04, while Laguna S 2.1'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 Laguna S 2.1's cutoff date.

Laguna S 2.1

—

Muse Glimmer-30B

Jan 2026

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Laguna S 2.1 and Muse Glimmer-30B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Laguna S 2.1
✓ Preferred
Muse Glimmer-30B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Laguna S 2.1 vs Muse Glimmer-30B.

Which is better, Laguna S 2.1 or Muse Glimmer-30B?

Laguna S 2.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 41.4 to 35.5. Laguna S 2.1 is made by Poolside 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 Laguna S 2.1 compare to Muse Glimmer-30B in benchmarks?

Laguna S 2.1 scores SWE-bench Multilingual: 78.5%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 70.2%, SWE-Bench Pro: 59.4%, Toolathlon: 49.7%, SWE Atlas - Codebase QnA: 46.2%. Muse Glimmer-30B scores AIME 2026: 94.7%, Siren AgentDojo Utility: 94.2%, GPQA: 83.5%, AA-LCR: 80.0%, CharXiv-R: 78.8%.

What are the context window sizes for Laguna S 2.1 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Laguna S 2.1 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 Laguna S 2.1 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (41.4 vs 35.5), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (OpenMDW License v1.1 vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Laguna S 2.1 and Muse Glimmer-30B?

Laguna S 2.1 is developed by Poolside and Muse Glimmer-30B is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons