Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B leads Llama 3.2 1B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 17.5 to 4.8, and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs 6.7x less per output token ($0.201 vs $1.35 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
9.6
Output $/M
$0.201
0
Muse Glimmer 30BMeta
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.35
1
vs boards won of 1 shared

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Llama 3.2 1B Instruct for output tokens 6.7x cheaper ($0.201 vs $1.35 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
1
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
37
Muse Glimmer 30B only
4
Like-for-like categories
1 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
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Intelligence, 12.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Intelligence Index: Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 4.8 against Muse Glimmer 30B 17.5, 12.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 6.7x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct takes 60K 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
CategoryLlama 3.2 1B InstructBarsMuse Glimmer 30BTies
Intelligence01
All shared boards01
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured49.0Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)1.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
ALE-BenchNot measured962.5Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
LMArena Text: coding1070Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1056Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Intelligence Index4.817.5Muse Glimmer 30B
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured8.5Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom0.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
BALROG6.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)10.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)19.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.5%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)23.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1044Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expert1007Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1087Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Math Index0.0Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)0.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIME0.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math1086Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1098Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)20.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science1055Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1009Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1071Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1000Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
Design Arena: game devNot measured1144Only 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 index14 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
IFBench22.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)6.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text1055Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1031Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1033Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: English1117Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-English973Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Chinese959Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: German1014Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian941Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1030Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1050Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1030Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1025Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse 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

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct$0.0001Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.0010Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct$0.0020Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.020Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct$0.0074Exceeds the context window
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.079Exceeds the context window

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 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 Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Muse Glimmer 30B
MakerMeta LlamaMeta
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 25, 2024August 9, 2026
Context window60K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.027$0.325
Output $/Mtok$0.201$1.35
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B Instruct better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.2 1B Instruct for output tokens 6.7x cheaper ($0.201 vs $1.35 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.201 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, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Muse Glimmer 30B, with 131K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?

1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Llama 3.2 1B Instruct's coding index rests on 0 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