MAI-Code-1.1-Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash comes out ahead, 56 to 52 on our weighted score.
- Our pick
MicrosoftMAI-Code-1.1-Flash
56/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context256K
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
52/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash is our pick
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Muse Glimmer 30B (52). It leads on context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · MAI-Code-1.1-Flash unpriced
- Longest contextMAI-Code-1.1-FlashMAI-Code-1.1-Flash 256,000 · Muse Glimmer 30B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsMAI-Code-1.1-Flash: Text, Images · Muse Glimmer 30B: Text, Images
- Self-hostingMuse Glimmer 30BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
| Measure | Weight | MAI-Code-1.1-Flash | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 70 | 70 |
| Context window | 40% | 36 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 56/100 | 52/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | MAI-Code-1.1-FlashMicrosoft | Muse Glimmer 30BMeta |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | — | $0.30 |
| Output | — | $1.20 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $0.525 |
| Long-context rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | — | Median of 10 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenApache 2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | — | 12 |
| Released | Aug 11, 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.
- MAI-Code-1.1-Flash—
- Muse Glimmer 30B$5.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MAI-Code-1.1-Flash or Muse Glimmer 30B?
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Muse Glimmer 30B (52). It leads on context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, MAI-Code-1.1-Flash or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 10 API providers). . At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.525 per million tokens for Muse Glimmer 30B versus . MAI-Code-1.1-Flash has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. MAI-Code-1.1-Flash has not been scored yet and Muse Glimmer 30B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MAI-Code-1.1-Flash 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?
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Muse Glimmer 30B. Maximum output per response: MAI-Code-1.1-Flash up to 128,000, Muse Glimmer 30B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash accepts text and images; Muse Glimmer 30B accepts text and images. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Muse Glimmer 30B publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; MAI-Code-1.1-Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash is the newest, released Aug 11, 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BThree-way comparison
- MAI-Code-1.1-Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- MAI-Code-1.1-Flash vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BAlibaba (Qwen)
- MAI-Code-1.1-Flash vs Toast 1Mixedbread
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Solar Pro 4Upstage
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs MiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomi
