Nova Lite 1.0 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Muse Glimmer 30B leads Nova Lite 1.0 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 17.5 to 6.7, and Nova Lite 1.0 costs 5.6x less per output token ($0.24 vs $1.35 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.
Nova Lite 1.0 or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Nova Lite 1.0 for output tokens 5.6x cheaper ($0.24 vs $1.35 per million) and a larger context window (300K against 131K tokens).
- Shared results
- 1
- Nova Lite 1.0 only
- 40
- Muse Glimmer 30B only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Muse Glimmer 30B
Muse Glimmer 30B leads, 17.5 against 6.7.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Muse Glimmer 30B has a AA Agentic Index result, 8.5.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Nova Lite 1.0
Nova Lite 1.0 takes 300K tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Nova Lite 1.0
Nova Lite 1.0 $0.0002, Muse Glimmer 30B $0.0010 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Nova Lite 1.0 not benchmarked, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Intelligence, 10.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- AA Intelligence Index: Nova Lite 1.0 6.7 against Muse Glimmer 30B 17.5, 10.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Nova Lite 1.0 $0.24 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 5.6x apart.
- Context window
- Nova Lite 1.0 takes 300K tokens, Muse Glimmer 30B 131K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Nova Lite 1.0 | Bars | Muse Glimmer 30B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 1 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Nova Lite 1.0 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 49.0 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 16.7% | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 0.8% | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 962.5 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1239 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1241 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Nova Lite 1.0 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 6.7 | 17.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Nova Lite 1.0 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 8.5 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 17.5% | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Nova Lite 1.0 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 43.3% | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 4.3% | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1220 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1201 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1226 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Nova Lite 1.0 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 7.0 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 7.0% | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1227 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1235 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Nova Lite 1.0 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 59.0% | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| MMLU | 77.0% | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1232 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1213 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1238 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1219 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Nova Lite 1.0 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1144 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Nova Lite 1.0 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 34.1% | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 19.0% | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1229 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1205 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1197 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Vision | 990 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1243 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1208 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1225 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1229 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1153 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1153 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1238 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1226 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1216 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1199 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1234 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1211 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1176 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Vision: English | 999 | Not measured | Only Nova Lite 1.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Nova Lite 1.0 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Nova Lite 1.0 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Nova Lite 1.0 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Nova Lite 1.0 costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Amazon Nova Lite 1.0 | Meta Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Amazon | Meta |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | December 5, 2024 | August 9, 2026 |
| Context window | 300K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.06 | $0.325 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.24 | $1.35 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Nova Lite 1.0 better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Nova Lite 1.0 for output tokens 5.6x cheaper ($0.24 vs $1.35 per million) and a larger context window (300K against 131K tokens).
Which is cheaper, Nova Lite 1.0 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Nova Lite 1.0 costs $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.24 per million output tokens; Muse Glimmer 30B costs $0.325 and $1.35. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Nova Lite 1.0 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Nova Lite 1.0, with 300K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the Nova Lite 1.0 vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?
1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Nova Lite 1.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Muse Glimmer 30B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.