Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.7 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B leads GLM 4.7 Flash on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 17.5 to 14.9, and GLM 4.7 Flash costs 3.4x less per output token ($0.40 vs $1.35 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 2 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.7 FlashZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
42.1
Output $/M
$0.40
0
Muse Glimmer 30BMeta
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.35
2
vs boards won of 2 shared

GLM 4.7 Flash or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick

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

Pick GLM 4.7 Flash for output tokens 3.4x cheaper ($0.40 vs $1.35 per million) and a larger context window (200K against 131K tokens).

Shared results
2
GLM 4.7 Flash only
41
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
GLM 4.7 Flash not benchmarked, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Intelligence, 2.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Intelligence Index: GLM 4.7 Flash 14.9 against Muse Glimmer 30B 17.5, 2.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.7 Flash $0.40 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 3.4x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.7 Flash takes 200K 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
CategoryGLM 4.7 FlashBarsMuse Glimmer 30BTies
Intelligence01
Web design01
All shared boards02
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index5 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured49.0Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
ALE-BenchNot measured962.5Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
LMArena Text: coding1382Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1389Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Intelligence Index14.917.5Muse 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 4.7 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured8.5Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom98.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)58.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)7.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)60.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1356Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: expert1357Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1369Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
OTIS Mock AIME58.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: math1355Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1369Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
LMArena Text: science1358Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1343Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1357Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1343Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
Design Arena: websites1194Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: UI components1205Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: game dev11341144Muse Glimmer 30B
Design Arena: data viz1123Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: 3D1120Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: all code categories1177Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: SVG1037Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index18 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
IFBench60.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)41.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text1351Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1327Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1296Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: English1373Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: non-English1330Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1403Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: German1336Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Korean1283Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: French1332Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1350Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Russian1333Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Polish1291Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1342Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1345Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1320Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1304Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash 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 4.7 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse 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 4.7 Flash$0.0003Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.0010Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.7 Flash$0.0045Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.020Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.7 Flash$0.017Exceeds the context window
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.079Exceeds the context window

GLM 4.7 Flash 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 4.7 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.7 FlashMeta Muse Glimmer 30B
MakerZ.aiMeta
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJanuary 19, 2026August 9, 2026
Context window200K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.0653$0.325
Output $/Mtok$0.40$1.35
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.7 Flash better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.7 Flash for output tokens 3.4x cheaper ($0.40 vs $1.35 per million) and a larger context window (200K against 131K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.7 Flash or Muse Glimmer 30B?

GLM 4.7 Flash costs $0.0653 per million input tokens and $0.40 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 4.7 Flash or Muse Glimmer 30B?

GLM 4.7 Flash, with 200K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.7 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?

2 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.7 Flash'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