Muse Glimmer 30B vs Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash leads Muse Glimmer 30B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 19.5 to 17.5, at about the same output price ($1.15 vs $1.35 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.
Muse Glimmer 30B or Step 3.7 Flash: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Muse Glimmer 30B for work measured by AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 4
- Muse Glimmer 30B only
- 1
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 14
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 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
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash leads, 19.5 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
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Step 3.7 Flash has a Design Arena: websites result, 1196.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash takes 262K tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Step 3.7 Flash
Muse Glimmer 30B $0.0010, Step 3.7 Flash $0.0008 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Muse Glimmer 30B not benchmarked, Step 3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 9.2 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- AA Coding Index: Muse Glimmer 30B 49.0 against Step 3.7 Flash 39.6, 9.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 against Step 3.7 Flash $1.15 per million output tokens, 1.2x apart.
- Context window
- Muse Glimmer 30B takes 131K tokens, Step 3.7 Flash 262K.
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 | Muse Glimmer 30B | Bars | Step 3.7 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Web design | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 3 | 1 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer 30B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 49.0 | 39.6 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| SciCode | Not measured | 43.9% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 35.6% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| ALE-Bench | 962.5 | 694.1 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer 30B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 17.5 | 19.5 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer 30B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 8.5 | Not measured | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 98.5% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer 30B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 80.9% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 21.4% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer 30B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer 30B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 18 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer 30B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1196 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1179 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1179 | 1158 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1172 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1129 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1182 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 1085 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1152 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer 30B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 67.3% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 73.7% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer 30B | Step 3.7 Flash | 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
Step 3.7 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Step 3.7 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Step 3.7 Flash 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 | Meta Muse Glimmer 30B | StepFun Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meta | StepFun |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | August 9, 2026 | May 28, 2026 |
| Context window | 131K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.325 | $0.20 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.35 | $1.15 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Muse Glimmer 30B better than Step 3.7 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Muse Glimmer 30B for work measured by AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Muse Glimmer 30B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Muse Glimmer 30B costs $0.325 per million input tokens and $1.35 per million output tokens; Step 3.7 Flash costs $0.20 and $1.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Muse Glimmer 30B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the Muse Glimmer 30B vs Step 3.7 Flash comparison based on?
4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Muse Glimmer 30B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Step 3.7 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.