GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B
GPT-6.1 Sol leads Muse Glimmer 30B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 51.8 to 17.5, and Muse Glimmer 30B costs 7.4x less per output token ($1.35 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.
GPT-6.1 Sol or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 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 7.4x cheaper ($1.35 vs $10.00 per million).
- Shared results
- 3
- GPT-6.1 Sol only
- 95
- Muse Glimmer 30B only
- 2
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol leads, 51.8 against 17.5.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Muse Glimmer 30B has a AA Agentic Index result, 8.5.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a Design Arena: websites result, 1321.
Directional only
General
Vals Index
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a Vals Index result, 63.9%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol takes 1.05M tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Muse Glimmer 30B
GPT-6.1 Sol $0.0070, Muse Glimmer 30B $0.0010 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-6.1 Sol 82.4 from 5 benchmarks, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 59.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- ALE-Bench: GPT-6.1 Sol 2743.8 against Muse Glimmer 30B 962.5, 59.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-6.1 Sol $10.00 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 7.4x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-6.1 Sol takes 1.05M 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.
| Category | GPT-6.1 Sol | Bars | Muse Glimmer 30B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Web design | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 3 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | 96.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1753 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 49.0 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 55.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 88.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 65.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 3.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 96.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI) | 43.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | 39.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SciCode | 55.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FrontierCode | 50.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ALE-Bench | 2743.8 | 962.5 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1478 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1476 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1754 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1800 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | 1702 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SciCode | 9.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 51.8 | 17.5 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 168.4 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index19 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 8.5 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | 1306 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1213 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: spreadsheets | 1259 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench research | 83.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench browser | 88.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | 73.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SREBench (Vals AI) | 50.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 52.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 21.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 38.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | 6.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 70.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | 79.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 52.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vals Science Index | 59.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Robo-bench (Vals AI) | 28.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| APEX-Agents | 60.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SpireClimb | 24.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench reasoning | 92.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | 46.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 52.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 95.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ARC-AGI | 98.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 94.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Chess puzzles | 68.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 80.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| EBR-bench | 54.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1463 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1489 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1465 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1306 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1356 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 93.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 100.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ProofBench | 99.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1489 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1513 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 48.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 73.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1444 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1433 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1471 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1445 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | 75.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1321 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1317 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1389 | 1144 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1281 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1460 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1345 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench design | 82.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index26 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | 63.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench data analysis | 82.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 59.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 46.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 86.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 84.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| DTBench | 96.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMCA | 62.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Furniture assembly | 80.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text | 1443 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1466 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1425 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision | 1288 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1450 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1433 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1487 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1460 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1439 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1457 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1442 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1458 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1444 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1426 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1274 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1289 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1301 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Muse Glimmer 30B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Muse Glimmer 30B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol | Meta Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Meta |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | September 29, 2026 | August 9, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.00 | $0.325 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $1.35 |
| Coding index | 82.4 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 5 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 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 7.4x cheaper ($1.35 vs $10.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, GPT-6.1 Sol or Muse Glimmer 30B?
GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $10.00 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, GPT-6.1 Sol or Muse Glimmer 30B?
GPT-6.1 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?
3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-6.1 Sol's coding index rests on 5 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.