ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs Muse Glimmer 30B vs Solar Pro 4

Too close to call on our weighted score (Ornith 1.5 35B A3B 59, Muse Glimmer 30B 57, Solar Pro 4 55). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. DeepReinforce

    Ornith 1.5 35B A3B

    Released Aug 18, 2026

    59/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.20 / $1.70
    • Context262K
  2. Meta

    Muse Glimmer 30B

    Released Aug 10, 2026

    57/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.30 / $1.20
    • Context131K
  3. Upstage

    Solar Pro 4

    Released Aug 6, 2026

    55/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.30 / $1.20
    • Context524K
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Ornith 1.5 35B A3B 59/100, Muse Glimmer 30B 57/100, Solar Pro 4 55/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Muse Glimmer 30B on price and Solar Pro 4 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 30B and Solar Pro 4Muse Glimmer 30B $0.525 · Solar Pro 4 $0.525 · Ornith 1.5 35B A3B $0.575 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextSolar Pro 4Solar Pro 4 524,288 · Ornith 1.5 35B A3B 262,144 · Muse Glimmer 30B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsOrnith 1.5 35B A3B and Muse Glimmer 30BOrnith 1.5 35B A3B: Text, Images · Muse Glimmer 30B: Text, Images · Solar Pro 4: Text
  • Self-hostingOrnith 1.5 35B A3B and Muse Glimmer 30BPublishes downloadable weights (MIT and Apache 2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightOrnith 1.5 35B A3BMuse Glimmer 30BSolar Pro 4
Price50%616363
Inputs & features30%707045
Context window20%372449
Overall100%59/10057/10055/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs Muse Glimmer 30B vs Solar Pro 4 specifications side by side
SpecificationOrnith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforceMuse Glimmer 30BMetaSolar Pro 4Upstage
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)———
ECI rank———
Price per million tokens
Input$0.20 (best)$0.30$0.30
Output$1.70$1.20 (best)$1.20 (best)
Cached input——$0.06
Blended (3:1)$0.575$0.525 (best)$0.525 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 2 providersMedian of 10 providersOfficial Upstage API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens131,072 tokens524,288 tokens (best)
Max output—131,072 tokens131,072 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesYesYesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenMITOpenApache 2.0Proprietary
API model ID——solar-pro4
API providers212 (best)3
ReleasedAug 18, 2026Aug 10, 2026Aug 6, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Jan 4, 2026Feb 2026
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Ornith 1.5 35B A3B$5.40
  • Muse Glimmer 30B$5.40
  • Solar Pro 4$5.40
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Ornith 1.5 35B A3B, Muse Glimmer 30B or Solar Pro 4?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Ornith 1.5 35B A3B 59/100, Muse Glimmer 30B 57/100, Solar Pro 4 55/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Muse Glimmer 30B on price and Solar Pro 4 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, Ornith 1.5 35B A3B, Muse Glimmer 30B or Solar Pro 4?

Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 10 API providers). Solar Pro 4 costs $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official Upstage API price); 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 $0.525 for Solar Pro 4 (1× as much) and $0.575 for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B (1.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Ornith 1.5 35B A3B has not been scored yet, Muse Glimmer 30B has not been scored yet and Solar Pro 4 has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B, Muse Glimmer 30B and Solar Pro 4 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 262,144 for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B 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 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Ornith 1.5 35B A3B accepts text and images; Muse Glimmer 30B accepts text and images; Solar Pro 4 accepts text. Ornith 1.5 35B A3B handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Ornith 1.5 35B A3B and Muse Glimmer 30B publishes its weights (MIT and Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Solar Pro 4 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Ornith 1.5 35B A3B is the newest, released Aug 18, 2026. Muse Glimmer 30B came out Aug 10, 2026; Solar Pro 4 came out Aug 6, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Muse Glimmer 30B Jan 4, 2026, Solar Pro 4 Feb 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.