Mercury 2 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Muse Glimmer 30B leads Mercury 2 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 17.5 to 10.8, and Mercury 2 costs 1.8x less per output token ($0.75 vs $1.35 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 5 benchmarks have a result for both.
Mercury 2 or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Mercury 2 for output tokens 1.8x cheaper ($0.75 vs $1.35 per million) and work measured by AA Coding Index or ALE-Bench, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 5
- Mercury 2 only
- 37
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Muse Glimmer 30B
Muse Glimmer 30B leads, 17.5 against 10.8.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
Muse Glimmer 30B
Muse Glimmer 30B leads, 8.5 against 1.6.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Mercury 2 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1036.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Muse Glimmer 30B
Muse Glimmer 30B takes 131K tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Mercury 2
Mercury 2 $0.0006, Muse Glimmer 30B $0.0010 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Mercury 2 not benchmarked, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Web design, 20.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Design Arena: game dev: Mercury 2 984 against Muse Glimmer 30B 1144, 20.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Mercury 2 $0.75 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 1.8x apart.
- Context window
- Mercury 2 takes 128K 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 | Bars | Muse Glimmer 30B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 2 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Web design | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 5 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1171 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| AA Coding Index | 31.1 | 49.0 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| SciCode | 37.7% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 26.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 785.6 | 962.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1390 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1385 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1160 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1199 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| 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 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 10.8 | 17.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 1.6 | 8.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 70.8% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 77.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 17.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1362 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1358 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1374 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text: science | 1343 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1363 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1349 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1036 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 996 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 984 | 1144 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1009 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 982 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1021 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | 998 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 988 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 69.8% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 43.7% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1354 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1328 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1286 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1378 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1330 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1414 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1304 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1357 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1329 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1300 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1314 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | 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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Mercury 2 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Mercury 2 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 | Meta Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Inception | Meta |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | March 4, 2026 | August 9, 2026 |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.25 | $0.325 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.75 | $1.35 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Mercury 2 for output tokens 1.8x cheaper ($0.75 vs $1.35 per million) and work measured by AA Coding Index or ALE-Bench, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Mercury 2 costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 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 or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Muse Glimmer 30B, with 131K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2 vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?
5 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Mercury 2's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Muse Glimmer 30B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.