MiniMax M3 vs Muse Glimmer-30B
MiniMax M3 leads the LLM Stats Score 41.4 to 35.0. MiniMax M3 is 1.1x cheaper per token.
MiniMax · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
MiniMax M3 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 41.4 to 35.0, ranking #51 overall.
In the 7 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiniMax M3 wins 6; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, MiniMax M3 is roughly 1.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
MiniMax M3 also accepts a larger context window (524,288 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 MiniMax M3
- overall performance matters — it scores 41.4 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 6 of 7 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 1.1x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 524,288 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
35 reported for MiniMax M3 · 25 for Muse Glimmer-30B
MiniMax M3 outperforms in 6 benchmarks (MMMU-Pro, OmniDocBench 1.5, OSWorld-Verified, SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.1), while Muse Glimmer-30B is better at 1 benchmark (MCP Atlas).
MiniMax M3 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, MiniMax M3 ($0.28/1M tokens) is 1.1x cheaper than Muse Glimmer-30B ($0.30/1M tokens).
For output processing, MiniMax M3 ($1.10/1M tokens) is 1.1x cheaper than Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Muse Glimmer-30B is more expensive than MiniMax M3.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiniMax M3 has 398.4B more parameters than Muse Glimmer-30B, making it 1345.9% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiniMax M3 accepts 524,288 input tokens compared to Muse Glimmer-30B's 131,072 tokens. MiniMax M3 can generate longer responses up to 524,288 tokens, while Muse Glimmer-30B is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both MiniMax M3 and Muse Glimmer-30B support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
MiniMax M3
Muse Glimmer-30B
License
Usage and distribution terms
MiniMax M3 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.
MIT
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
MiniMax M3 was released on 2026-06-01, while Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10.
Muse Glimmer-30B is 2 months newer than MiniMax M3.
Jun 1, 2026
3 months ago
Aug 10, 2026
1 months ago
2mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Muse Glimmer-30B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-04, while MiniMax M3'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 MiniMax M3's cutoff date.
—
Jan 2026
Provider Availability
MiniMax M3 is available from DeepInfra, Fireworks, MiniMax, Novita, Together. Muse Glimmer-30B is available from DeepInfra.
MiniMax M3
Muse Glimmer-30B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against MiniMax M3 and Muse Glimmer-30B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about MiniMax M3 vs Muse Glimmer-30B.