Muse GlimmervsGLM-5.3
Muse Glimmer | GLM-5.3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | 30B | 743B |
| Benchmarks | ||
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan 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% | — |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal 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% | — |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial 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. | — | 66.9% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 3.0command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 28.3% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can 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% | — |
Multi-step tool use MCP AtlasCan 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% | — |
Cybersecurity CyberGymTests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | — | 84.5% |
Cybersecurity ExploitBenchA 'capability ladder' for security research, built by CMU researchers: the AI is given known bugs in Chrome's V8 engine and scored on how far it gets toward a working exploit inside a research sandbox — from understanding the patch to triggering a crash. Higher is better. | — | 54.4% |
Cybersecurity ExploitGym · 6-hour budgetCan an AI agent turn a known software vulnerability into a working attack in a controlled lab? Built by MPI-SP researchers, the score is how many of 898 real cases (userspace programs, the V8 engine, the Linux kernel) it cracks — here with a 6-hour compute budget per case. Higher is better. | — | 130 |
Cybersecurity ExploitGym · 2-hour budgetCan an AI agent turn a known software vulnerability into a working attack in a controlled lab? Built by MPI-SP researchers, the score is how many of 898 real cases (userspace programs, the V8 engine, the Linux kernel) it cracks — here with a 2-hour compute budget per case. Higher is better. | — | 105 |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity'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% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 62.5% |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 83.5% | — |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 65.9% | — |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last ExamA hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 28.5% |
Business workflows AutomationBenchTests 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. | — | 48.2% |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 953 | 1769Best |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 78.8% | — |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Z.ai |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Which is better: Muse Glimmer or GLM-5.3?
GLM-5.3 leads Muse Glimmer on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (GDPval-AA v2). Muse Glimmer shipped 4 days before GLM-5.3, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer has 30B parameters, while GLM-5.3 has 743B. Muse Glimmer is open weight, while GLM-5.3 is proprietary.
On GDPval-AA v2, GLM-5.3 leads at 1769 vs Muse Glimmer at 953.
Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer was released by Meta on Aug 10 2026.
GLM-5.3 was released by Z.ai on Aug 14 2026.
Muse Glimmer is an open weight model released by Meta. GLM-5.3 is a proprietary model released by Z.ai.
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Opus 5GLM-5.3vsClaude Opus 5Muse GlimmervsGPT-5.6-CyberGLM-5.3vsGPT-5.6-CyberMuse GlimmervsGemini 3.7 FlashGLM-5.3vsGemini 3.7 FlashMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.6GLM-5.3vsGrok 4.6Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GLM-5.3vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse GlimmervsMistral Medium 3.5GLM-5.3vsMistral Medium 3.5