Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6V vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B leads GLM 4.6V on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 17.5 to 11.2, and GLM 4.6V costs 1.5x less per output token ($0.90 vs $1.35 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.6VZ.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
1
vs boards won of 1 shared

GLM 4.6V or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick

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

Pick GLM 4.6V for output tokens 1.5x cheaper ($0.90 vs $1.35 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
1
GLM 4.6V only
37
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.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 4.6V not benchmarked, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Intelligence, 6.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Intelligence Index: GLM 4.6V 11.2 against Muse Glimmer 30B 17.5, 6.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6V $0.90 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
Context window
Both take 131K tokens.

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
CategoryGLM 4.6VBarsMuse Glimmer 30BTies
Intelligence01
All shared boards01
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured49.0Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)41.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)14.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
ALE-BenchNot measured962.5Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
LMArena Text: coding1389Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1391Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Intelligence Index11.217.5Muse 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
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured8.5Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom31.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)71.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)9.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1367Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: expert1371Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1391Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: diagrams1182Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: homework1155Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Math Index85.3Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)85.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)79.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: science1389Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1389Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1393Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1359Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
Design Arena: game devNot measured1144Only 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 index18 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
IFBench30.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)48.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text1376Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1350Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1347Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision1164Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: English1395Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: non-English1358Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1425Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: Russian1339Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1359Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1357Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1347Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1343Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: English1179Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1217Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1171Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1113Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VMuse 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

GLM 4.6V$0.0008Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.0010Fits in one request

GLM 4.6V costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6V$0.018Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.020Fits in one request

GLM 4.6V costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6V$0.069Exceeds the context window
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.079Exceeds the context window

GLM 4.6V 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 GLM 4.6V and Muse Glimmer 30B
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6VMeta Muse Glimmer 30B
MakerZ.aiMeta
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 8, 2025August 9, 2026
Context window131K131K
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 GLM 4.6V better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.6V for output tokens 1.5x cheaper ($0.90 vs $1.35 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6V or Muse Glimmer 30B?

GLM 4.6V 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, GLM 4.6V or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Neither: both take 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6V vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?

1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.6V'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