Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs Ornith 1.0 31B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
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.
- Our pick
DeepReinforce
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.70
- Context262K
DeepReinforce
Ornith 1.0 31B
51/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context262K
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
52/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context131K
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 1.5 35B A3B and Ornith 1.0 31BOrnith 1.5 35B A3B 262,144 · Ornith 1.0 31B 262,144 · Muse Glimmer 30B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsOrnith 1.5 35B A3B: Text, Images · Ornith 1.0 31B: Text, Images · Muse Glimmer 30B: Text, Images
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Ornith 1.5 35B A3B | Ornith 1.0 31B | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 70 | 60 | 70 |
| Context window | 40% | 37 | 37 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 57/100 | 51/100 | 52/100 |
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 | Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce | Ornith 1.0 31BDeepReinforce | Muse Glimmer 30BMeta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.20 (best) | — | $0.30 |
| Output | $1.70 | — | $1.20 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.575 | — | $0.525 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | — | Median of 10 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| 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 | OpenMIT | OpenMIT | OpenApache 2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 2 | — | 12 (best) |
| Released | Aug 18, 2026 | Jun 25, 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.
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B$5.40
- Ornith 1.0 31B—
- Muse Glimmer 30B$5.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ornith 1.5 35B A3B, Ornith 1.0 31B or Muse Glimmer 30B?
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, Ornith 1.5 35B A3B, Ornith 1.0 31B or Muse Glimmer 30B?
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. Ornith 1.5 35B A3B has not been scored yet, Ornith 1.0 31B has not been scored yet and Muse Glimmer 30B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B, Ornith 1.0 31B and Muse Glimmer 30B 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 1.5 35B A3B and Ornith 1.0 31B 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?
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B accepts text and images; Ornith 1.0 31B accepts text and images; Muse Glimmer 30B accepts text and images. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (MIT and Apache 2.0), 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.
