Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith 1.0 31B vs Ornith 1.5 35B A3B
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B comes out ahead, 57 to 52 and 51 on our weighted score, though Muse Glimmer 30B is 9% cheaper per token.
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
52/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context131K
DeepReinforce
Ornith 1.0 31B
51/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context262K
- Our pick
DeepReinforce
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.70
- Context262K
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B is our pick
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against Muse Glimmer 30B (52) and Ornith 1.0 31B (51). 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 · Ornith 1.5 35B A3B $0.575 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Ornith 1.0 31B unpriced
- Longest contextOrnith 1.0 31B and Ornith 1.5 35B A3BOrnith 1.0 31B 262,144 · Ornith 1.5 35B A3B 262,144 · Muse Glimmer 30B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsMuse Glimmer 30B: Text, Images · Ornith 1.0 31B: Text, Images · Ornith 1.5 35B A3B: Text, Images
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Muse Glimmer 30B | Ornith 1.0 31B | Ornith 1.5 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 70 | 60 | 70 |
| Context window | 40% | 24 | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 52/100 | 51/100 | 57/100 |
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 | Muse Glimmer 30BMeta | Ornith 1.0 31BDeepReinforce | Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.30 | — | $0.20 (best) |
| Output | $1.20 (best) | — | $1.70 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.525 (best) | — | $0.575 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 10 providers | — | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | — | — |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenApache 2.0 | OpenMIT | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 12 (best) | — | 2 |
| Released | Aug 10, 2026 | Jun 25, 2026 | Aug 18, 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
- Ornith 1.0 31B—
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B$5.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Muse Glimmer 30B, Ornith 1.0 31B or Ornith 1.5 35B A3B?
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against Muse Glimmer 30B (52) and Ornith 1.0 31B (51). 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, Muse Glimmer 30B, Ornith 1.0 31B or Ornith 1.5 35B A3B?
Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 10 API providers). Ornith 1.5 35B A3B costs $0.20 input / $1.70 output per million tokens (median across 2 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 $0.575 for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B (1.1× as much). Ornith 1.0 31B has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Muse Glimmer 30B has not been scored yet, Ornith 1.0 31B has not been scored yet and Ornith 1.5 35B A3B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Muse Glimmer 30B, Ornith 1.0 31B and Ornith 1.5 35B A3B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Ornith 1.0 31B and Ornith 1.5 35B A3B have the largest context windows (262,144 and 262,144 tokens), against 131,072 for Muse Glimmer 30B. Maximum output per response: Muse Glimmer 30B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Muse Glimmer 30B accepts text and images; Ornith 1.0 31B accepts text and images; Ornith 1.5 35B A3B accepts text and images. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (Apache 2.0 and MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B is the newest, released Aug 18, 2026. Muse Glimmer 30B came out Aug 10, 2026; Ornith 1.0 31B came out Jun 25, 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.
