Muse Glimmer-30B vs Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max leads the LLM Stats Score 52.0 to 35.0. Muse Glimmer-30B is 4.7x cheaper per token.
Meta · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Qwen3.8 Max leads the overall LLM Stats Score 52.0 to 35.0, ranking #11 overall.
In the 9 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8 Max wins 9; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Muse Glimmer-30B is roughly 4.7x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Qwen3.8 Max also accepts a larger context window (256,000 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
- cost matters — it's about 4.7x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
Choose Qwen3.8 Max
- overall performance matters — it scores 52.0 and ranks #11 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 9 of 9 exact shared results
- you process long inputs — it offers a 256,000 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 · 42 for Qwen3.8 Max
Muse Glimmer-30B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8 Max is better at 9 benchmarks (GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, IFBench, MMMU-Pro, OSWorld-Verified, ScreenSpot Pro, SkillsBench, SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1).
Qwen3.8 Max 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 5.5x cheaper than Qwen3.8 Max ($1.65/1M tokens).
For output processing, Muse Glimmer-30B ($1.20/1M tokens) is 4.1x cheaper than Qwen3.8 Max ($4.95/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3.8 Max is more expensive than Muse Glimmer-30B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Qwen3.8 Max has 2370.4B more parameters than Muse Glimmer-30B, making it 8008.1% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3.8 Max accepts 256,000 input tokens compared to Muse Glimmer-30B's 131,072 tokens. Qwen3.8 Max can generate longer responses up to 256,000 tokens, while Muse Glimmer-30B is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Muse Glimmer-30B and Qwen3.8 Max support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Muse Glimmer-30B
Qwen3.8 Max
License
Usage and distribution terms
Muse Glimmer-30B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while Qwen3.8 Max uses Qwen3.8-Max License.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Qwen3.8-Max License
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Muse Glimmer-30B was released on 2026-08-10, while Qwen3.8 Max was released on 2026-08-02.
Muse Glimmer-30B is 0 month newer than Qwen3.8 Max.
Aug 10, 2026
1 months ago
1w newerAug 2, 2026
1 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Muse Glimmer-30B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-04, while Qwen3.8 Max'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 Max's cutoff date.
Jan 2026
—
Provider Availability
Muse Glimmer-30B is available from DeepInfra. Qwen3.8 Max is available from DeepInfra, Fireworks, Novita, Together.
Muse Glimmer-30B
Qwen3.8 Max
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Muse Glimmer-30B and Qwen3.8 Max side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Muse Glimmer-30B vs Qwen3.8 Max.