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 | 80B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 256k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $0.30 |
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. | — | $1.50 |
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 | $0.12Parasail |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.10Phala | $0.80Parasail |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 44.3% |
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% | 70.6% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 62.8% |
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% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 36.2% |
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 | Qwen |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | Feb 3 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3-Coder-NextvsClaude Opus 5.5Muse GlimmervsGPT-6 SolQwen3-Coder-NextvsGPT-6 SolMuse GlimmervsGemini 3.8 FlashQwen3-Coder-NextvsGemini 3.8 FlashMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.7Qwen3-Coder-NextvsGrok 4.7Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3-Coder-NextvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse GlimmervsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3-Coder-NextvsMistral Medium 3.5Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer leads Qwen3-Coder-Next on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified). Only Qwen3-Coder-Next has a verified first-party API price: $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Glimmer. Qwen3-Coder-Next shipped 188 days before Muse Glimmer, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer has 30B parameters, while Qwen3-Coder-Next has 80B.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Muse Glimmer leads at 51.2% vs Qwen3-Coder-Next at 44.3%. On SWE-Bench Verified, Muse Glimmer leads at 76% vs Qwen3-Coder-Next at 70.6%.