Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,287.1392% of row best · rating · llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct; 95% CI [1282.87677682, 1291.39199009]; votes 39349; rank 243 | 1,391.91100% of row best · rating · muse-glimmer; 95% CI [1382.01378668, 1401.79860600]; votes 3696; rank 148 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark wins | 1 benchmark winOverall lead |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Meta | Meta |
| Family | Llama 4 Maverick 17b 128e Instruct | Muse Glimmer |
| Model | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| Version | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-04-05 | 2026-08-09 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2026-01-04 |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 131K |
| Total parameters | 401.6B | 29.8B |
| Active parameters | 17B | Unknown |
| License | other | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Openrouter (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
16 comparable fields · 9 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct Capabilities
Muse Glimmer 30B Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
 DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct vs Muse Glimmer 30B FAQs
Is Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or Muse Glimmer 30B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or Muse Glimmer 30B?+
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is $0.20 and Muse Glimmer 30B is $0.30 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is cheaper on this metric. Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is $0.696 and Muse Glimmer 30B is $1.20 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or Muse Glimmer 30B?+
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has the larger sourced context window. Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct supports 1,000K and Muse Glimmer 30B supports 131K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or Muse Glimmer 30B?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or Muse Glimmer 30B be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is open weight; Muse Glimmer 30B is open weight.
Can Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B understand images?+
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is documented with image input; Muse Glimmer 30B is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or Muse Glimmer 30B?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is — and Muse Glimmer 30B is —.
Do Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct and Muse Glimmer 30B support reasoning and tool use?+
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct: tool calling and image input. Muse Glimmer 30B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or Muse Glimmer 30B?+
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has 1 sourced provider route; Muse Glimmer 30B has 3, so Muse Glimmer 30B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or Muse Glimmer 30B?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.