Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Command A vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Updated October 21, 2026. 3 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Command ACohere
Coding
No data
Overall
13.1
Output $/M
$10.00
0
Muse Glimmer 30BMeta
Coding
No data
Overall
17.5
Output $/M
$1.35
3
vs boards won of 3 shared

Decision reading

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

Command A has the edge where the context window is larger, 256K against 131K tokens, and where what matters is AA Coding Index or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
3
Command A only
57
Muse Glimmer 30B only
1
Like-for-like categories
3 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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
Command A not benchmarked, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 21.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Coding Index: Command A 27.8 against Muse Glimmer 30B 49.0, 21.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Command A $10.00 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 7.4x apart.
Context window
Command A 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
CategoryCommand ABarsMuse Glimmer 30BTies
Coding01
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
All shared boards03
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for Command A and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCommand AMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Coding Index27.849.0Muse Glimmer 30B
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)35.1%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)7.8%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)17.6%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)28.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
SciCode38.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)25.0%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
ALE-BenchNot measured962.5Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
LMArena Text: coding1330Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1336Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Command A and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCommand AMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Intelligence Index13.117.5Muse Glimmer 30B
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Command A and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCommand AMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Agentic Index1.08.5Muse Glimmer 30B
Finance Agent (Vals AI)9.0%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
τ²-Bench Telecom80.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Command A and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCommand AMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
GPQA Diamond48.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)76.1%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)12.0%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1326Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: expert1296Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1335Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Command A and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCommand AMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AIME13.3%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)76.2%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MGSM (Vals AI)85.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
AA Math Index13.0Not measuredOnly Command A measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)13.0%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: math1300Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1312Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Command A and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCommand AMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
MMLU Pro69.2%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)79.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)64.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)46.0%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)61.4%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MedQA (Vals AI)80.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MedCode (Vals AI)19.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)71.2%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: science1339Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1334Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1348Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1315Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Command A and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCommand AMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Command A and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCommand AMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)55.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
IFBench73.9%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)52.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
DTBench61.3%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMCA10.3%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text1331Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1309Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1319Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: English1344Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: non-English1313Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1327Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: German1342Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1285Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: Korean1285Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: French1351Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1347Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: Russian1314Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: Polish1324Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1338Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1334Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1328Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1306Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Command A and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkCommand AMuse 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

Command A$0.0075Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.0010Fits in one request

Muse Glimmer 30B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Command A$0.155Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.020Fits in one request

Muse Glimmer 30B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Command A$0.600Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.079Exceeds the context window

Muse Glimmer 30B 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 Command A and Muse Glimmer 30B
SpecificationCohere Command AMeta Muse Glimmer 30B
MakerCohereMeta
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 13, 2025August 9, 2026
Context window256K131K
Input $/Mtok$2.50$0.325
Output $/Mtok$10.00$1.35
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved task$2.69Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Command A better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Command A has the edge where the context window is larger, 256K against 131K tokens, and where what matters is AA Coding Index or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Command A costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Muse Glimmer 30B costs $0.325 and $1.35. Cost per solved task is known for Command A only.

Which has the bigger context window, Command A or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Command A, with 256K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Command A vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?

3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Command A's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark 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