Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B comes out ahead, 71 to 57 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context131K
- Our pick
NVIDIANemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
71/100- ECI—
- Price$0.05 / $0.20
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is our pick
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 71/100 against Muse Glimmer 30B (57). It leads on price and context window. Muse Glimmer 30B wins on inputs & features. 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 priceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B $0.087 · Muse Glimmer 30B $0.525 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B 262,144 · Muse Glimmer 30B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsMuse Glimmer 30BMuse Glimmer 30B: Text, Images · Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Muse Glimmer 30B | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 63 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 57/100 | 71/100 |
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 | Muse Glimmer 30BMeta | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.30 | $0.05 (best) |
| Output | $1.20 | $0.20 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.525 | $0.087 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 10 providers | Median of 9 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenApache 2.0 | Open |
| API model ID | — | nvidia/nemotron-3.5-lightning-30b-a3b |
| API providers | 12 | 12 |
| Released | Aug 10, 2026 | Aug 11, 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.
- Muse Glimmer 30B$5.40
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B$0.90
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Muse Glimmer 30B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 71/100 against Muse Glimmer 30B (57). It leads on price and context window. Muse Glimmer 30B wins on inputs & features. 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, Muse Glimmer 30B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 9 API providers; free on Nvidia). Muse Glimmer 30B costs $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 $0.087 per million tokens for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B versus $0.525 for Muse Glimmer 30B (6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Muse Glimmer 30B has not been scored yet and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Muse Glimmer 30B and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B 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?
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 131,072 for Muse Glimmer 30B. Maximum output per response: Muse Glimmer 30B up to 131,072, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Muse Glimmer 30B accepts text and images; Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B accepts text. 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?
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B 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 Solar Pro 4Three-way comparison
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Solar Pro 4Upstage
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs MiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomi
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Toast 1Mixedbread
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Laguna XS 2.1Poolside
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Ling 3.0 Flash FininclusionAI
