Muse Glimmer-30B vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen3.8 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 49.1 to 35.0. Qwen3.8 Flash is 2.3x cheaper per token.
Meta · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Qwen3.8 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 49.1 to 35.0, ranking #21 overall.
In the 5 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8 Flash wins 5; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3.8 Flash is roughly 2.3x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Qwen3.8 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 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
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose Qwen3.8 Flash
- overall performance matters — it scores 49.1 and ranks #21 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 5 of 5 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 2.3x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
- 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
25 reported for Muse Glimmer-30B · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash
Muse Glimmer-30B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 5 benchmarks (CharXiv-R, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, IFBench, SWE-Bench Pro).
Qwen3.8 Flash 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 2.0x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens) is 2.6x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Muse Glimmer-30B is more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Qwen3.8 Flash has 95.4B more parameters than Muse Glimmer-30B, making it 322.3% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3.8 Flash accepts 1,000,000 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 Qwen3.8 Flash support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Muse Glimmer-30B
Qwen3.8 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
Muse Glimmer-30B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.
Qwen3.8 Flash is 1 month newer than Muse Glimmer-30B.
Aug 10, 2026
1 months ago
Aug 26, 2026
3 weeks ago
2w newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Muse Glimmer-30B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-04, while Qwen3.8 Flash'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 Qwen3.8 Flash's cutoff date.
Jan 2026
—
Provider Availability
Muse Glimmer-30B is available from DeepInfra. Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita.
Muse Glimmer-30B
Qwen3.8 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Muse Glimmer-30B and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Muse Glimmer-30B vs Qwen3.8 Flash.