Muse GlimmervsGPT-5.2
Muse Glimmer | GPT-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $1.75 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $14.00 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.175 |
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 | $1.75Azure |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.10Phala | $14.00Azure |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 80% |
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% | 92.4% |
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% | 47.3% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 38% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 65.8% |
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% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | — | 52.9% |
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 | OpenAI |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | Dec 11 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Fable 5.1GPT-5.2vsClaude Fable 5.1Muse GlimmervsGemini 3.8 FlashGPT-5.2vsGemini 3.8 FlashMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.6GPT-5.2vsGrok 4.6Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse GlimmervsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-5.2vsMistral Medium 3.5Muse GlimmervsKimi K3GPT-5.2vsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.2 leads Muse Glimmer on 2 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, GPQA Diamond, OSWorld-Verified). Only GPT-5.2 has a verified first-party API price: $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Glimmer. GPT-5.2 shipped 242 days before Muse Glimmer, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer is open weight, while GPT-5.2 is proprietary.
On SWE-Bench Verified, GPT-5.2 leads at 80% vs Muse Glimmer at 76%. On GPQA Diamond, GPT-5.2 leads at 92.4% vs Muse Glimmer at 83.5%. On OSWorld-Verified, Muse Glimmer leads at 65.9% vs GPT-5.2 at 47.3%.