Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B

GLM 5.1 leads Muse Glimmer 30B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 26.1 to 17.5, and Muse Glimmer 30B costs 3.3x less per output token ($1.35 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 5 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
57.5
Output $/M
$4.40
4
Muse Glimmer 30BMeta
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.35
1
vs boards won of 5 shared

GLM 5.1 or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Muse Glimmer 30B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Muse Glimmer 30B for output tokens 3.3x cheaper ($1.35 vs $4.40 per million) and work measured by ALE-Bench, where it leads.

Shared results
5
GLM 5.1 only
84
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
GLM 5.1 49.2 from 3 benchmarks, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 15.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Agentic Index: GLM 5.1 23.9 against Muse Glimmer 30B 8.5, 15.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.1 $4.40 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 3.3x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.1 takes 205K 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 5.1BarsMuse Glimmer 30BTies
Coding11
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Web design10
All shared boards41
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index11
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
LMArena WebDev1508Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
AA Coding Index55.849.0GLM 5.1
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)76.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)31.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)25.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)56.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
SciCode44.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
WeirdML57.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
ALE-Bench887.1962.5Muse Glimmer 30B
LMArena Text: coding1485Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1484Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: React1505Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1508Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Intelligence Index26.117.5GLM 5.1
Epoch Capabilities Index149.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Agentic Index23.98.5GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building web apps1175Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1167Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1162Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1182Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1053Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building games1164Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1120Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1163Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheets1315Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)44.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)27.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom97.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
APEX-Agents40.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2$5,634Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
GPQA Diamond84.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)30.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)89.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
SimpleBench55.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Chess puzzles20.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1473Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: expert1478Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1482Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
AIME91.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME93.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 336.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
ProofBench22.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: math1473Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1470Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
MMLU Pro86.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)51.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)64.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)71.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)41.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
SimpleQA Verified34.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: science1478Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1474Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1465Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1452Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
Design Arena: websites1290Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: UI components1292Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: game dev12651144GLM 5.1
Design Arena: data viz1366Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: 3D1336Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1268Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: SVG1218Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1141Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Muse Glimmer 30BLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)61.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)72.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
IFBench76.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)73.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
ExploitBench18.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text1463Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1453Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1453Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: English1476Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1448Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1515Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: German1467Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1435Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1424Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: French1470Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1468Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1454Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1449Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1473Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1467Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1454Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1442Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 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 GLM 5.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Muse 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 5.1$0.0036Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.0010Fits in one request

Muse Glimmer 30B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.020Fits in one request

Muse Glimmer 30B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds 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 GLM 5.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.1Meta Muse Glimmer 30B
MakerZ.aiMeta
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 7, 2026August 9, 2026
Context window205K131K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$0.325
Output $/Mtok$4.40$1.35
Coding index49.2Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$0.60Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.1 better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Muse Glimmer 30B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Muse Glimmer 30B for output tokens 3.3x cheaper ($1.35 vs $4.40 per million) and work measured by ALE-Bench, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or Muse Glimmer 30B?

GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Muse Glimmer 30B costs $0.325 and $1.35. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.1 or Muse Glimmer 30B?

GLM 5.1, with 205K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?

5 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5.1's coding index rests on 3 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