Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Codestral 2508 vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Codestral 2508 costs 1.5x less per output token than Muse Glimmer 30B ($0.90 vs $1.35 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 2 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Codestral 2508 Replace Muse Glimmer 30B
Codestral 2508Mistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.90
0
Muse Glimmer 30BMeta
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.35
2
vs boards won of 2 shared

Codestral 2508 or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Codestral 2508 for output tokens 1.5x cheaper ($0.90 vs $1.35 per million) and a larger context window (256K against 131K tokens).

Model ACodestral 2508Mistral AINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BMuse Glimmer 30BMetaNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
2
Codestral 2508 only
6
Muse Glimmer 30B only
3
Like-for-like categories
2 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.

At a glance

Coding index
Codestral 2508 not benchmarked, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 27.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
ALE-Bench: Codestral 2508 137.8 against Muse Glimmer 30B 962.5, 27.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Codestral 2508 $0.90 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
Context window
Codestral 2508 takes 256K 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryCodestral 2508BarsMuse Glimmer 30BTies
Coding01
Web design01
All shared boards02
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCodestral 2508Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured49.0Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
ALE-Bench137.8962.5Muse Glimmer 30B
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCodestral 2508Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured17.5Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCodestral 2508Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured8.5Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCodestral 2508Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
Kagi LLM Benchmark32.5%Not measuredOnly Codestral 2508 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCodestral 2508Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
Neither model has a result on 13 boards here
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCodestral 2508Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
Neither model has a result on 18 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Web design benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCodestral 2508Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
Design Arena: websites1013Not measuredOnly Codestral 2508 measured
Design Arena: UI components1017Not measuredOnly Codestral 2508 measured
Design Arena: game dev9681179Muse Glimmer 30B
Design Arena: data viz1017Not measuredOnly Codestral 2508 measured
Design Arena: 3D1020Not measuredOnly Codestral 2508 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1007Not measuredOnly Codestral 2508 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCodestral 2508Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
Neither model has a result on 46 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCodestral 2508Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
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

Codestral 2508$0.0008Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.0010Fits in one request

Codestral 2508 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Codestral 2508$0.018Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.020Fits in one request

Codestral 2508 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Codestral 2508$0.069Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.079Exceeds the context window

Codestral 2508 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.

Specifications of Codestral 2508 and Muse Glimmer 30B
SpecificationMistral Codestral 2508Meta Muse Glimmer 30B
MakerMistral AIMeta
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 1, 2025August 9, 2026
Context window256K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.325
Output $/Mtok$0.90$1.35
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Codestral 2508 better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Codestral 2508 for output tokens 1.5x cheaper ($0.90 vs $1.35 per million) and a larger context window (256K against 131K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Codestral 2508 or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Codestral 2508 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 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, Codestral 2508 or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Codestral 2508, with 256K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Codestral 2508 vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?

2 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Codestral 2508'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.

Compare next