Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B leads DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 17.5 to 14.8, and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs 1.3x less per output token ($1.0142 vs $1.35 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 5 benchmarks have a result for both.

DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusDeepSeek
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.0142
0
Muse Glimmer 30BMeta
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.35
4
vs boards won of 5 shared, 1 tied

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick

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

Pick DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus for output tokens 1.3x cheaper ($1.0142 vs $1.35 per million) and a larger context window (164K against 131K tokens).

Shared results
5
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus only
40
Muse Glimmer 30B only
0
Like-for-like categories
4 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
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus not benchmarked, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 6.4 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ALE-Bench: DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus 745.2 against Muse Glimmer 30B 962.5, 7.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus $1.0142 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 1.3x apart.
Context window
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus takes 164K 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
CategoryDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusBarsMuse Glimmer 30BTies
Coding02
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Web design001 tie
All shared boards041 tie
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Coding Index43.549.0Muse Glimmer 30B
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)79.8%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
SciCode38.0%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)31.8%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
ALE-Bench745.2962.5Muse Glimmer 30B
LMArena Text: coding1425Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1426Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Intelligence Index14.817.5Muse 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 DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Agentic Index6.88.5Muse Glimmer 30B
τ²-Bench Telecom37.1%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus 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
Reasoning benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.2%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)16.4%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1426Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1432Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.4%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Math Index89.7Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)89.7%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: math1402Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)85.1%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: science1451Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1468Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1457Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1414Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index00
Web design benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
Design Arena: websites1187Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: UI components1180Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: game dev11311131Tie
Design Arena: data viz1168Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: 3D1141Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: all code categories1175Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: SVG1065Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
IFBench57.0%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)69.3%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
DTBench81.3%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMCA28.6%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text1419Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1404Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1403Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: English1429Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: non-English1408Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: Russian1435Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: Polish1427Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1411Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1422Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1409Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1391Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusMuse 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

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus$0.0008Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.0010Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus$0.018Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.020Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus$0.071Exceeds the context window
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.079Exceeds the context window

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus 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 DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and Muse Glimmer 30B
SpecificationDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusMeta Muse Glimmer 30B
MakerDeepSeekMeta
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 22, 2025August 9, 2026
Context window164K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.3063$0.325
Output $/Mtok$1.0142$1.35
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus for output tokens 1.3x cheaper ($1.0142 vs $1.35 per million) and a larger context window (164K against 131K tokens).

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus or Muse Glimmer 30B?

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs $0.3063 per million input tokens and $1.0142 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, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus or Muse Glimmer 30B?

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus, with 164K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?

5 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus'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