Laguna S 2.1 vs Muse Glimmer-30B
Laguna S 2.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 40.9 to 35.0. Laguna S 2.1 is 4.2x cheaper per token.
Poolside · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Laguna S 2.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 40.9 to 35.0, ranking #52 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.
On price, Laguna S 2.1 is roughly 4.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Laguna S 2.1 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 Laguna S 2.1
- overall performance matters — it scores 40.9 and ranks #52 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
- cost matters — it's about 4.2x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
Choose Muse Glimmer-30B
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
6 reported for Laguna S 2.1 · 25 for Muse Glimmer-30B
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.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Laguna S 2.1 ($0.10/1M tokens) is 3.0x cheaper than Muse Glimmer-30B ($0.30/1M tokens).
For output processing, Laguna S 2.1 ($0.20/1M tokens) is 6.0x cheaper than Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Muse Glimmer-30B is more expensive than Laguna S 2.1.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Laguna S 2.1 has 88.4B more parameters than Muse Glimmer-30B, making it 298.6% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Laguna S 2.1 accepts 1,048,576 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 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
Muse Glimmer-30B
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.
OpenMDW License v1.1
Open weights
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.
Jul 21, 2026
1 months ago
Aug 10, 2026
1 months ago
2w newerKnowledge 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.
—
Jan 2026
Provider Availability
Laguna S 2.1 is available from Poolside. Muse Glimmer-30B is available from DeepInfra.
Laguna S 2.1
Muse Glimmer-30B
Outputs Comparison
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.
FAQ
Common questions about Laguna S 2.1 vs Muse Glimmer-30B.