Muse GlimmervsQwen3.8-Max-0902
Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.8-Max-0902 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2.4T |
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. | — | 1M |
| 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. | $1.10Parasail | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74% | 82.7% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
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% | — |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 64.9% |
QwenSWEBench V2Software engineering — Qwen's in-house coding benchmark, second version, built around complex real-world software-engineering tasks. Scores are not comparable with the first version. Higher is better. | — | 70% |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 29% |
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% | — |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 64% |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 76.1% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 73.3% |
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% | — |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | — | 50.8% |
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% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Qwen |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | Sep 2 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsClaude Fable 5.1Muse GlimmervsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-Max-0902vsGPT-5.6 SolMuse GlimmervsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-Max-0902vsGemini 3.7 FlashMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsGrok 4.6Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse GlimmervsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.8-Max-0902 leads Muse Glimmer on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (MMMU-Pro). Muse Glimmer shipped 23 days before Qwen3.8-Max-0902, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer has 30B parameters, while Qwen3.8-Max-0902 has 2.4T. Muse Glimmer is open weight, while Qwen3.8-Max-0902 is proprietary.
On MMMU-Pro, Qwen3.8-Max-0902 leads at 82.7% vs Muse Glimmer at 74%.
Muse Glimmer was released by Meta on Aug 10 2026.
Qwen3.8-Max-0902 was released by Qwen on Sep 2 2026.
Muse Glimmer is an open weight model released by Meta. Qwen3.8-Max-0902 is a proprietary model released by Qwen.