Muse Spark 1.2 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Too close to call on our weighted score (Muse Spark 1.2 60, Muse Glimmer 30B 57). The right pick depends on what you value most.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
60/100- ECI155.0
- Price$1.25 / $4.25
- Context1.05M
- Meta
Muse Glimmer 30B
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Muse Spark 1.2 60/100, Muse Glimmer 30B 57/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Muse Glimmer 30B on price and Muse Spark 1.2 for long inputs. 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 · Muse Spark 1.2 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMuse Spark 1.2Muse Spark 1.2 1,048,576 · Muse Glimmer 30B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsMuse Spark 1.2Muse Spark 1.2: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Muse Glimmer 30B: Text, Images
- Self-hostingMuse Glimmer 30BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Muse Spark 1.2 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 36 | 63 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 100 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 60/100 | 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 | Muse Spark 1.2Meta | Muse Glimmer 30BMeta |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 155.0 | — |
| ECI rank | #30 of 148 | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 60.3% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $1.25 | $0.30 (best) |
| Output | $4.25 | $1.20 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.15 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.00 | $0.525 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Meta API | Median of 10 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | No |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenApache 2.0 |
| API model ID | muse-spark-1.2 | — |
| API providers | 15 (best) | 12 |
| Released | Aug 5, 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.
- Muse Spark 1.2$21.00
- Muse Glimmer 30B$5.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Muse Spark 1.2 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Muse Spark 1.2 60/100, Muse Glimmer 30B 57/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Muse Glimmer 30B on price and Muse Spark 1.2 for long inputs. 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 Spark 1.2 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 10 API providers). Muse Spark 1.2 costs $1.25 input / $4.25 output per million tokens (official Meta 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 $2.00 for Muse Spark 1.2 (3.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Muse Spark 1.2 has an ECI of 155.0 and Muse Glimmer 30B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Muse Spark 1.2 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?
Muse Spark 1.2 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 131,072 for Muse Glimmer 30B. Maximum output per response: Muse Spark 1.2 up to 131,072, Muse Glimmer 30B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Muse Spark 1.2 accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Muse Glimmer 30B accepts text and images. Muse Spark 1.2 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Muse Glimmer 30B publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Muse Spark 1.2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Muse Glimmer 30B is the newest, released Aug 10, 2026. Muse Spark 1.2 came out Aug 5, 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 GLM-5.3Three-way comparison
- Muse Spark 1.2 vs GLM-5.3Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 155.8
- Muse Spark 1.2 vs Gemini 3.6 FlashGoogle · ECI 154.3
- Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max 0902Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 155.2
- Muse Spark 1.2 vs Grok 4.5xAI · ECI 154.0
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Solar Pro 4Upstage
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce
