Muse Glimmer 30B vs Solar Pro 4 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash comes out ahead, 63 to 53 and 53 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
53/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context131K
UpstageSolar Pro 4
53/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context524K
- Our pick
StepFunStep 3.7 Flash
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.15
- Context256K
Step 3.7 Flash is our pick
Step 3.7 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against Solar Pro 4 (53) and Muse Glimmer 30B (53). It leads on price and inputs & features. Solar Pro 4 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 priceStep 3.7 FlashStep 3.7 Flash $0.438 · Muse Glimmer 30B $0.525 · Solar Pro 4 $0.525 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSolar Pro 4Solar Pro 4 524,288 · Step 3.7 Flash 256,000 · Muse Glimmer 30B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsStep 3.7 FlashMuse Glimmer 30B: Text, Images · Solar Pro 4: Text · Step 3.7 Flash: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingMuse Glimmer 30B and Step 3.7 FlashPublishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Muse Glimmer 30B | Solar Pro 4 | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 60 | 60 | 64 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 60 | 45 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 25 | 49 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 53/100 | 53/100 | 63/100 |
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 | Solar Pro 4Upstage | Step 3.7 FlashStepFun |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.30 | $0.30 | $0.20 (best) |
| Output | $1.20 | $1.20 | $1.15 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.06 | $0.04 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.525 | $0.525 | $0.438 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 11 providers | Official Upstage API | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 524,288 tokens (best) | 256,000 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max | Yeslow · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenApache 2.0 | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | solar-pro4 | step-3.7-flash |
| API providers | 13 | 6 | 19 (best) |
| Released | Aug 10, 2026 | Aug 6, 2026 | May 29, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jan 4, 2026 | Feb 2026 | Mar 1, 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
- Solar Pro 4$5.40
- Step 3.7 Flash$4.30
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Muse Glimmer 30B, Solar Pro 4 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against Solar Pro 4 (53) and Muse Glimmer 30B (53). It leads on price and inputs & features. Solar Pro 4 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, Muse Glimmer 30B, Solar Pro 4 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.20 input / $1.15 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). Muse Glimmer 30B costs $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers); Solar Pro 4 costs $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official Upstage API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.438 per million tokens for Step 3.7 Flash versus $0.525 for Muse Glimmer 30B (1.2× as much) and $0.525 for Solar Pro 4 (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Muse Glimmer 30B has not been scored yet, Solar Pro 4 has not been scored yet and Step 3.7 Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Muse Glimmer 30B, Solar Pro 4 and Step 3.7 Flash 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?
Solar Pro 4 has the largest context window at 524,288 tokens, against 256,000 for Step 3.7 Flash and 131,072 for Muse Glimmer 30B. Maximum output per response: Muse Glimmer 30B up to 131,072, Solar Pro 4 up to 131,072, Step 3.7 Flash up to 256,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Muse Glimmer 30B accepts text and images; Solar Pro 4 accepts text; Step 3.7 Flash accepts text, images and video. Step 3.7 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Muse Glimmer 30B and Step 3.7 Flash publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Solar Pro 4 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Muse Glimmer 30B is the newest, released Aug 10, 2026. Solar Pro 4 came out Aug 6, 2026; Step 3.7 Flash came out May 29, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Muse Glimmer 30B Jan 4, 2026, Solar Pro 4 Feb 2026, Step 3.7 Flash Mar 1, 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 Nov 2, 2026.
