Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Muse Glimmer 30B leads Mercury 2.5 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 17.5 to 12.3, and Mercury 2.5 costs 9.0x less per output token ($0.15 vs $1.35 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 2 benchmarks have a result for both.
Mercury 2.5 or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Muse Glimmer 30B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Muse Glimmer 30B for work measured by ALE-Bench or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 2
- Mercury 2.5 only
- 20
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Muse Glimmer 30B
Muse Glimmer 30B leads, 17.5 against 12.3.
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
Long documents
Listed context window
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 $0.0001, Muse Glimmer 30B $0.0010 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 22.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- ALE-Bench: Mercury 2.5 301.6 against Muse Glimmer 30B 962.5, 22.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 9.0x apart.
- Context window
- Mercury 2.5 takes 260K 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 | Mercury 2.5 | Bars | Muse Glimmer 30B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 2 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 49.0 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 3.7% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 4.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 2.4% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 34.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 18.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | 45.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SciCode | 38.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 301.6 | 962.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 12.3 | 17.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 8.5 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 18.9% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 2.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 4.3% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 8.8% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 11.8% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 83.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 31.3% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1131 | Only 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 index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 45.3% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 55.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 71.7% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 43 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | 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
Mercury 2.5 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Mercury 2.5 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Mercury 2.5 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 | Inception Mercury 2.5 | Meta Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Inception | Meta |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | September 8, 2026 | August 9, 2026 |
| Context window | 260K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.04 | $0.325 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.15 | $1.35 |
| Coding index | 1.6 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Muse Glimmer 30B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Muse Glimmer 30B for work measured by ALE-Bench or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 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, Mercury 2.5 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?
2 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Mercury 2.5's coding index rests on 2 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.