Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | 30B | 70B |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.30DeepInfra | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.10Phala | — |
These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 51.2% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 76% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 51.7% | — |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 75.5% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 22% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 83.5% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 65.9% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 953 | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 78.8% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | Oct 15 2024 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Haiku 5.5Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70BvsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse GlimmervsGPT-6.1 SolLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70BvsGPT-6.1 SolMuse GlimmervsGemini 4 ArgonLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70BvsGemini 4 ArgonMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.7Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70BvsGrok 4.7Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse GlimmervsMistral Large 4Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70BvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B shipped 664 days before Muse Glimmer, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer has 30B parameters, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B has 70B.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Glimmer and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.