GLM-5.3 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Muse Glimmer 30B comes out ahead, 57 to 43 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5.3
43/100- ECI155.8
- Price$1.40 / $4.40
- Context1M
- Our pick
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Muse Glimmer 30B is our pick
Muse Glimmer 30B is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against GLM-5.3 (43). It leads on price and inputs & features. GLM-5.3 wins on context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceMuse Glimmer 30BMuse Glimmer 30B $0.525 · GLM-5.3 $2.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGLM-5.3GLM-5.3 1,000,000 · Muse Glimmer 30B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsMuse Glimmer 30BGLM-5.3: Text · Muse Glimmer 30B: Text, Images
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | GLM-5.3 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 34 | 63 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 43/100 | 57/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GLM-5.3Z.ai (Zhipu) | Muse Glimmer 30BMeta |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 155.8 | — |
| ECI rank | #24 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 90.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 68.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 91.1% | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 41.0% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $1.40 | $0.30 (best) |
| Output | $4.40 | $1.20 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.26 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.15 | $0.525 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Median of 10 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high · max | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | OpenApache 2.0 |
| API model ID | glm-5.3 | — |
| API providers | 62 (best) | 12 |
| Released | Aug 14, 2026 | Aug 10, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jan 4, 2026 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- GLM-5.3$22.80
- Muse Glimmer 30B$5.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-5.3 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Muse Glimmer 30B is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against GLM-5.3 (43). It leads on price and inputs & features. GLM-5.3 wins on context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 10 API providers). GLM-5.3 costs $1.40 input / $4.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.525 per million tokens for Muse Glimmer 30B versus $2.15 for GLM-5.3 (4.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. GLM-5.3 has an ECI of 155.8 and Muse Glimmer 30B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-5.3 and Muse Glimmer 30B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.3 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Muse Glimmer 30B. Maximum output per response: GLM-5.3 up to 131,072, Muse Glimmer 30B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-5.3 accepts text; Muse Glimmer 30B accepts text and images. Muse Glimmer 30B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (Apache 2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
GLM-5.3 is the newest, released Aug 14, 2026. Muse Glimmer 30B came out Aug 10, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Muse Glimmer 30B Jan 4, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Muse Spark 1.2Three-way comparison
- GLM-5.3 vs Muse Spark 1.2Meta · ECI 155.0
- GLM-5.3 vs Grok 4.6xAI · ECI 156.6
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.8 Max 0902Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 155.2
- GLM-5.3 vs Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle · ECI 156.9
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Solar Pro 4Upstage
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce
