Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Nano Banana 2.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B costs 5.6x less per output token than Nano Banana 2.1 ($1.35 vs $7.50 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Replace Nano Banana 2.1 Replace Muse Glimmer 30B
Nano Banana 2.1Google
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$7.50
Muse Glimmer 30BMeta
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.35
vs $7.50 vs $1.35 per 1M output tokens. Muse Glimmer 30B is 5.6x cheaper.

Nano Banana 2.1 or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick

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

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Model ANano Banana 2.1GoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BMuse Glimmer 30BMetaNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task

No benchmark has tested both yet. Nano Banana 2.1 has results on Design Arena: images, Design Arena: graphic design and Design Arena: logos; Muse Glimmer 30B on AA Coding Index, ALE-Bench and AA Intelligence Index. Compare them on price and context instead.

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
Nano Banana 2.1 not benchmarked, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Nano Banana 2.1 $7.50 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 5.6x apart.
Context window
Nano Banana 2.1 takes 66K tokens, Muse Glimmer 30B 131K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index2 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Nano Banana 2.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkNano Banana 2.1Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured49.0Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
ALE-BenchNot measured962.5Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Intelligence benchmarks for Nano Banana 2.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkNano Banana 2.1Muse 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 measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Nano Banana 2.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkNano Banana 2.1Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured8.5Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Web design benchmarks for Nano Banana 2.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkNano Banana 2.1Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
Design Arena: game devNot measured1124Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Image generationDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Image generation benchmarks for Nano Banana 2.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkNano Banana 2.1Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
Design Arena: images1290Not measuredOnly Nano Banana 2.1 measured
Design Arena: graphic design1333Not measuredOnly Nano Banana 2.1 measured
Design Arena: logos1277Not measuredOnly Nano Banana 2.1 measured
LMArena Text to Image1328Not measuredOnly Nano Banana 2.1 measured
LMArena Image Edit1426Not measuredOnly Nano Banana 2.1 measured

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

Nano Banana 2.1$0.0053Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.0010Fits in one request

Muse Glimmer 30B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Nano Banana 2.1$0.098Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.020Fits in one request

Muse Glimmer 30B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Nano Banana 2.1$0.375Exceeds the context window
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 Nano Banana 2.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
SpecificationGoogle Nano Banana 2.1Meta Muse Glimmer 30B
MakerGoogleMeta
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedOctober 6, 2026August 9, 2026
Context window66K131K
Input $/Mtok$1.50$0.325
Output $/Mtok$7.50$1.35
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Nano Banana 2.1 better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, Nano Banana 2.1 or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Nano Banana 2.1 costs $1.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 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, Nano Banana 2.1 or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Muse Glimmer 30B, with 131K tokens against 66K.

Has any benchmark tested both Nano Banana 2.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Nano Banana 2.1 has results on Design Arena: images, Design Arena: graphic design and Design Arena: logos; Muse Glimmer 30B on AA Coding Index, ALE-Bench and AA Intelligence Index. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 23, 2026.

Compare next