Muse Glimmer-30B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Muse Glimmer-30B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are closely matched at 34.9 and 32.4 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is 1.7x cheaper per token.
Meta · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Muse Glimmer-30B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 34.9 and 32.4.
In the 10 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Muse Glimmer-30B wins 7; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is roughly 1.7x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B also accepts a larger context window (262,144 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
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 7 of 10 exact shared results
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
Choose Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- cost matters — it's about 1.7x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 262,144 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 · 49 for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Muse Glimmer-30B outperforms in 7 benchmarks (AIME 2026, CharXiv-R, Humanity's Last Exam, MCP Atlas, SkillsBench, SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified), while Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is better at 3 benchmarks (GPQA, MMMU-Pro, OmniDocBench 1.5).
Muse Glimmer-30B shows notably better performance in the majority of 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 3.0x more expensive than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B ($0.10/1M tokens).
For output processing, Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens) is 1.3x more expensive than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B ($0.95/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Muse Glimmer-30B is more expensive than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has 5.4B more parameters than Muse Glimmer-30B, making it 18.2% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to Muse Glimmer-30B's 131,072 tokens. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Muse Glimmer-30B is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Muse Glimmer-30B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Muse Glimmer-30B
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
License
Usage and distribution terms
Both models are licensed under Apache 2.0.
Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10, while Qwen3.6-35B-A3B was released on 2026-04-16.
Muse Glimmer-30B is 4 months newer than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Aug 10, 2026
1 months ago
3mo newerApr 16, 2026
5 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Muse Glimmer-30B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-04, while Qwen3.6-35B-A3B'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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B's cutoff date.
Jan 2026
—
Provider Availability
Muse Glimmer-30B is available from DeepInfra. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is available from DeepInfra.
Muse Glimmer-30B
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Muse Glimmer-30B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Muse Glimmer-30B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.