WritingmateWritingmate
Model Comparison

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.2Which Is Better in 2026?

Meta: Muse Glimmer 30B logoMeta•Meta: Muse Spark 1.2 logoMeta

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.2: which should you choose in 2026?

Muse Glimmer 30B (by Meta) and Muse Spark 1.2 (by Meta) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.

Muse Glimmer 30B is about 3.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.6375 vs $2.00 per 1M tokens).

Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 131,072 tokens).

Choose Muse Glimmer 30B if…

  • • lower blended API cost matters for your workload

Choose Muse Spark 1.2 if…

  • • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases

The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.

Chat with both models
vs

Performance benchmarks

Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.

Muse Glimmer 30B and Muse Spark 1.2 benchmark results
BenchmarkMuse Glimmer 30BMuse Spark 1.2
AutomationBench-AA

A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework.

Guardrail-aware score

——
BrowseComp

A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing.

Accuracy

——
OSWorld-Verified

A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state.

Mean task reward

——
DeepSWE 1.1

A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests.

Pass@1

—
55.0%±2.0
DataCurve
SWE-Bench Verified

A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests.

Resolved

——
Terminal-Bench 2.1

Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol.

Mean task success

——
AutoBench

A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench.

Weighted peer-assessment score

——
GPQA Diamond

The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry.

Accuracy

—
90.4%
Artificial Analysis
Humanity's Last Exam

A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged.

Accuracy

—
45.5%
Artificial Analysis
LiveBench

A contamination-resistant benchmark refreshed on a fixed release cadence. Scores from different LiveBench releases must never be compared as the same protocol.

Mean of category averages

—
78.0%
LiveBench

Benchmark sources

Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.

Pricing, capabilities, and model facts

Muse Glimmer 30B and Muse Spark 1.2 model facts
FeatureMuse Glimmer 30BMuse Spark 1.2
Context & model facts
DeveloperMetaMeta
API providerMetaMeta
Input context131,072 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Maximum output——
Released——
Added to WritingmateAug 9, 2026Aug 5, 2026
LicenseNot availableNot available
Knowledge cutoff——
Capabilities
InputsText, ImageText, Image, Video, File, Audio
OutputsTextText
Provider endpoint accepts tool parametersYesYes
ReasoningYesYes
VisionYesYes
Image GenerationNoNo
Video GenerationNoNo
API pricing
Input (per 1M tokens)$0.35$1.25
Output (per 1M tokens)$1.50$4.25
Blended 3:1 input/output$0.6375$2.00
API performance
p95 latencyNot measuredNot measured
Output throughputNot measuredNot measured
Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table.

Data sources

  • Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)

Catalog data last updated Aug 9, 2026.

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.2 FAQ

Which is better, Muse Glimmer 30B or Muse Spark 1.2?

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Muse Glimmer 30B is about 3.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.6375 vs $2.00 per 1M tokens). Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 131,072 tokens).

Which model is cheaper to use through an API?

Muse Glimmer 30B is about 3.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.6375 vs $2.00 per 1M tokens).

Which model supports more context?

Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 131,072 tokens).

Can I switch between Muse Glimmer 30B and Muse Spark 1.2?

Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.