Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 4 Scout vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B leads Llama 4 Scout on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 17.5 to 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout costs 2.7x less per output token ($0.50 vs $1.35 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 4 ScoutMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
24.9
Output $/M
$0.50
0
Muse Glimmer 30BMeta
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.35
4
vs boards won of 4 shared

Llama 4 Scout or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick

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

Pick Llama 4 Scout for output tokens 2.7x cheaper ($0.50 vs $1.35 per million) and a larger context window (1.31M against 131K tokens).

Shared results
4
Llama 4 Scout only
78
Muse Glimmer 30B only
1
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.

At a glance

Coding index
Llama 4 Scout not benchmarked, Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Web design, 44.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: game dev: Llama 4 Scout 772 against Muse Glimmer 30B 1124, 44.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 4 Scout $0.50 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 2.7x apart.
Context window
Llama 4 Scout takes 1.31M 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 4 ScoutBarsMuse Glimmer 30BTies
Coding01
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Web design01
All shared boards04
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
SWE-bench Verified9.1%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
AA Coding Index8.249.0Muse Glimmer 30B
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)38.5%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)29.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
SciCode21.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)1.5%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
ALE-BenchNot measured962.5Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured
LMArena Text: coding1286Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1286Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.517.5Muse Glimmer 30B
Epoch Capabilities Index129.6Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AA Agentic Index0.58.5Muse Glimmer 30B
τ²-Bench Telecom15.5%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)28.1%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
GPQA Diamond47.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)58.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)58.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)51.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
ARC-AGI0.5%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
ARC-AGI-20.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1266Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: expert1235Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1293Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Vision: diagrams1125Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Vision: homework1148Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark36.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
AIME19.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)79.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MGSM (Vals AI)88.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
AA Math Index14.0Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)14.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
OTIS Mock AIME7.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MATH level 562.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: math1287Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1286Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
MMLU Pro69.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)72.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)46.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)55.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)57.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MedQA (Vals AI)50.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MedCode (Vals AI)23.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)75.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: science1278Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1275Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1285Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1257Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Web design benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
Design Arena: websites750Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Design Arena: UI components765Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Design Arena: game dev7721124Muse Glimmer 30B
Design Arena: data viz896Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Design Arena: all code categories789Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutMuse Glimmer 30BLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)34.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)50.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
IFBench39.5%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)27.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
DTBench57.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMCA12.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Fiction.LiveBench36.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text1279Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1248Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1249Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Vision1118Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: English1304Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: non-English1252Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1255Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: German1272Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1206Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: Korean1207Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: French1283Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1278Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: Russian1263Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: Polish1265Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1280Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1265Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1269Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1242Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Vision: English1143Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1106Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1117Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Vision: humor1102Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1126Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Muse Glimmer 30B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutMuse 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 4 Scout$0.0004Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.0010Fits in one request

Llama 4 Scout costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 4 Scout$0.010Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.020Fits in one request

Llama 4 Scout costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 4 Scout$0.040Fits in one request
Muse Glimmer 30B$0.079Exceeds the context window

Llama 4 Scout 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 4 Scout and Muse Glimmer 30B
SpecificationMeta Llama 4 ScoutMeta Muse Glimmer 30B
MakerMeta LlamaMeta
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 5, 2025August 9, 2026
Context window1.31M131K
Input $/Mtok$0.175$0.325
Output $/Mtok$0.50$1.35
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved task$1.276Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 4 Scout better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 4 Scout for output tokens 2.7x cheaper ($0.50 vs $1.35 per million) and a larger context window (1.31M against 131K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Llama 4 Scout costs $0.175 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Muse Glimmer 30B costs $0.325 and $1.35. Cost per solved task is known for Llama 4 Scout only.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 4 Scout or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Llama 4 Scout, with 1.31M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 4 Scout vs Muse Glimmer 30B comparison based on?

4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 23, 2026. Llama 4 Scout'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