Muse Glimmer-30B vs Muse Spark 1.2
Muse Spark 1.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 39.8 to 35.0. Muse Glimmer-30B is 3.8x cheaper per token.
Meta · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Muse Spark 1.2 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 39.8 to 35.0, ranking #56 overall.
In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Muse Spark 1.2 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Muse Glimmer-30B is roughly 3.8x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Muse Spark 1.2 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 Muse Glimmer-30B
- cost matters — it's about 3.8x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose Muse Spark 1.2
- overall performance matters — it scores 39.8 and ranks #56 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes coding and agents — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
25 reported for Muse Glimmer-30B · 3 for Muse Spark 1.2
Muse Glimmer-30B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Muse Spark 1.2 is better at 1 benchmark (Terminal-Bench 2.1).
Muse Spark 1.2 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, Muse Glimmer-30B ($0.30/1M tokens) is 4.2x cheaper than Muse Spark 1.2 ($1.25/1M tokens).
For output processing, Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens) is 3.5x cheaper than Muse Spark 1.2 ($4.25/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Muse Spark 1.2 is more expensive than Muse Glimmer-30B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Muse Spark 1.2 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Muse Glimmer-30B's 131,072 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Muse Glimmer-30B and Muse Spark 1.2 support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Muse Glimmer-30B
Muse Spark 1.2
License
Usage and distribution terms
Muse Glimmer-30B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while Muse Spark 1.2 uses a proprietary license.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10, while Muse Spark 1.2 was released on 2026-08-05.
Muse Glimmer-30B is 0 month newer than Muse Spark 1.2.
Aug 10, 2026
1 months ago
5d newerAug 5, 2026
1 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Muse Glimmer-30B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-04, while Muse Spark 1.2'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 Muse Spark 1.2's cutoff date.
Jan 2026
—
Provider Availability
Muse Glimmer-30B is available from DeepInfra. Muse Spark 1.2 is available from Meta Model API.
Muse Glimmer-30B
Muse Spark 1.2
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Muse Glimmer-30B and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Muse Glimmer-30B vs Muse Spark 1.2.