Muse Glimmer-30B vs o3
Muse Glimmer-30B leads the LLM Stats Score 34.9 to 31.1. Muse Glimmer-30B is 6.7x cheaper per token.
Meta · OpenAI · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Muse Glimmer-30B leads the overall LLM Stats Score 34.9 to 31.1, ranking #96 overall.
In the 5 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Muse Glimmer-30B wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Muse Glimmer-30B is roughly 6.7x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
o3 also accepts a larger context window (200,000 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
- overall performance matters — it scores 34.9 and ranks #96 on LLM Stats
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 5 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 6.7x 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 o3
- you process long inputs — it offers a 200,000 token context window
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
25 reported for Muse Glimmer-30B · 22 for o3
Muse Glimmer-30B outperforms in 4 benchmarks (CharXiv-R, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Verified), while o3 is better at 1 benchmark (MMMU-Pro).
Muse Glimmer-30B 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 6.7x cheaper than o3 ($2.00/1M tokens).
For output processing, Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens) is 6.7x cheaper than o3 ($8.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, o3 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
o3 accepts 200,000 input tokens compared to Muse Glimmer-30B's 131,072 tokens. Muse Glimmer-30B can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while o3 is limited to 100,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Muse Glimmer-30B and o3 support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Muse Glimmer-30B
o3
License
Usage and distribution terms
Muse Glimmer-30B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while o3 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 o3 was released on 2025-04-16.
Muse Glimmer-30B is 16 months newer than o3.
Aug 10, 2026
1 months ago
1.3yr newerApr 16, 2025
1.4 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Muse Glimmer-30B has a knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-04, while o3 has a cutoff of 2024-05-31.
Muse Glimmer-30B has more recent training data (up to 2026-01-04), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to o3 (2024-05-31).
Jan 2026
1.7 yr newerMay 2024
Provider Availability
Muse Glimmer-30B is available from DeepInfra. o3 is available from OpenAI.
Muse Glimmer-30B
o3
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Muse Glimmer-30B and o3 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Muse Glimmer-30B vs o3.