Kimi K2 Thinking vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Kimi K2 Thinking leads Muse Glimmer 30B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.0 to 17.5, and Muse Glimmer 30B costs 1.9x less per output token ($1.35 vs $2.50 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 2 benchmarks have a result for both.
Kimi K2 Thinking or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Kimi K2 Thinking for a larger context window (262K against 131K tokens) and work measured by ALE-Bench, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 2
- Kimi K2 Thinking only
- 28
- 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
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Kimi K2 Thinking
Kimi K2 Thinking leads, 22.0 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
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Kimi K2 Thinking has a GPQA Diamond result, 78.5%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only Kimi K2 Thinking has a AIME result, 85.4%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Kimi K2 Thinking has a MMLU Pro result, 81.1%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Kimi K2 Thinking has a Design Arena: websites result, 1113.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Kimi K2 Thinking
Kimi K2 Thinking takes 262K tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Muse Glimmer 30B
Kimi K2 Thinking $0.0019, Muse Glimmer 30B $0.0010 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Kimi K2 Thinking has the number, $0.61.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Kimi K2 Thinking not benchmarked, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 12.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- ALE-Bench: Kimi K2 Thinking 597.5 against Muse Glimmer 30B 962.5, 12.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Kimi K2 Thinking $2.50 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 1.9x apart.
- Context window
- Kimi K2 Thinking takes 262K 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 | Kimi K2 Thinking | Bars | Muse Glimmer 30B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 1 | 1 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
| Benchmark | Kimi K2 Thinking | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 63.4% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 49.0 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 63.1% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 60.2% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 85.3% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 31.1% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| Terminal-Bench | 35.7% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| WeirdML | 42.8% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| ALE-Bench | 597.5 | 962.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Kimi K2 Thinking | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 22.0 | 17.5 | Kimi K2 Thinking |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.8 | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Kimi K2 Thinking | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 8.5 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 93.0% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| METR time horizons | 59.2% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Kimi K2 Thinking | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 78.5% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 83.8% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.8% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Kimi K2 Thinking | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 85.4% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | 90.2% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| AA Math Index | 94.7 | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 94.7% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Kimi K2 Thinking | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 81.1% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 80.2% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 65.7% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 60.6% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 71.7% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | 92.6% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 84.8% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Kimi K2 Thinking | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1113 | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1179 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Kimi K2 Thinking | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 68.1% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 72.0% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured |
| CL-bench | 17.6% | Not measured | Only Kimi K2 Thinking 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 | Kimi K2 Thinking | 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 | MoonshotAI Kimi K2 Thinking | Meta Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Moonshot AI | Meta |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | November 6, 2025 | August 9, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.60 | $0.325 |
| Output $/Mtok | $2.50 | $1.35 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.61 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Kimi K2 Thinking better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Kimi K2 Thinking for a larger context window (262K against 131K tokens) and work measured by ALE-Bench, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Kimi K2 Thinking or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Kimi K2 Thinking costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Muse Glimmer 30B costs $0.325 and $1.35. Cost per solved task is known for Kimi K2 Thinking only.
Which has the bigger context window, Kimi K2 Thinking or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Kimi K2 Thinking, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the Kimi K2 Thinking vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?
2 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Kimi K2 Thinking'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.