Solar Pro 3 vs Muse Glimmer 30B vs Jamba Mini
Too close to call on our weighted score (Muse Glimmer 30B 57, Jamba Mini 57, Solar Pro 3 55). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Upstage
Solar Pro 3
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.25
- Context131K
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context131K
AI21 LabsJamba Mini
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.40
- Context256K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Muse Glimmer 30B 57/100, Jamba Mini 57/100, Solar Pro 3 55/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Solar Pro 3 on price and Jamba Mini 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 priceSolar Pro 3 and Jamba MiniSolar Pro 3 $0.25 · Jamba Mini $0.25 · Muse Glimmer 30B $0.525 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextJamba MiniJamba Mini 256,000 · Solar Pro 3 131,072 · Muse Glimmer 30B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsMuse Glimmer 30BSolar Pro 3: Text · Muse Glimmer 30B: Text, Images · Jamba Mini: Text
- Self-hostingMuse Glimmer 30B and Jamba MiniPublishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Solar Pro 3 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Jamba Mini |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 78 | 63 | 78 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 70 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 24 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 57/100 | 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 | Solar Pro 3Upstage | Muse Glimmer 30BMeta | Jamba MiniAI21 Labs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.25 | $0.30 | $0.20 (best) |
| Output | $0.25 (best) | $1.20 | $0.40 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.25 (best) | $0.525 | $0.25 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Upstage API | Median of 10 providers | Official AI21 Labs API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 4,096 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenApache 2.0 | Open |
| API model ID | solar-pro3 | — | jamba-mini |
| API providers | 2 | 12 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Jan 2026 | Aug 10, 2026 | Jan 1, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Mar 2025 | Jan 4, 2026 | Aug 22, 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Solar Pro 3$3.00
- Muse Glimmer 30B$5.40
- Jamba Mini$2.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Solar Pro 3, Muse Glimmer 30B or Jamba Mini?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Muse Glimmer 30B 57/100, Jamba Mini 57/100, Solar Pro 3 55/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Solar Pro 3 on price and Jamba Mini 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, Solar Pro 3, Muse Glimmer 30B or Jamba Mini?
Solar Pro 3 is cheaper at $0.25 input / $0.25 output per million tokens (official Upstage API price). Jamba Mini costs $0.20 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official AI21 Labs API price); Muse Glimmer 30B costs $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 10 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.25 per million tokens for Solar Pro 3 versus $0.25 for Jamba Mini (1× as much) and $0.525 for Muse Glimmer 30B (2.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Solar Pro 3 has not been scored yet, Muse Glimmer 30B has not been scored yet and Jamba Mini has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Solar Pro 3, Muse Glimmer 30B and Jamba Mini 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?
Jamba Mini has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Solar Pro 3 and 131,072 for Muse Glimmer 30B. Maximum output per response: Solar Pro 3 up to 8,192, Muse Glimmer 30B up to 131,072, Jamba Mini up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Solar Pro 3 accepts text; Muse Glimmer 30B accepts text and images; Jamba Mini accepts text. Muse Glimmer 30B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Muse Glimmer 30B and Jamba Mini publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Solar Pro 3 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Muse Glimmer 30B is the newest, released Aug 10, 2026. Solar Pro 3 came out Jan 2026; Jamba Mini came out Jan 1, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Solar Pro 3 Mar 2025, Muse Glimmer 30B Jan 4, 2026, Jamba Mini Aug 22, 2024.
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.
