Muse Glimmer 30B vs Kimi K2.7 Code: which should you choose in 2026?
Muse Glimmer 30B (by Meta) and Kimi K2.7 Code (by Moonshot AI) 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 2.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.6375 vs $1.40 per 1M tokens).
Kimi K2.7 Code has the larger context window (262,144 tokens vs 131,072 tokens).
Choose Muse Glimmer 30B if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
Choose Kimi K2.7 Code 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.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Muse Glimmer 30B | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
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 | — | — |
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 | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests. Pass@1 | — | 31.0%±1.0 DataCurve |
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 | — | — |
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 | — | — |
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 | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
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 | — | — |
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 | — | 68.4% LiveBench |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score for code and web development | — | 1474 ±10 |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Aug 12, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Muse Glimmer 30B | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Meta | Moonshot AI |
| API provider | Meta | MoonshotAI |
| Input context | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Maximum output | — | 262,144 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Aug 9, 2026 | Jun 12, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.35 | $0.70 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $1.50 | $3.50 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $0.6375 | $1.40 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not 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.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Muse Glimmer 30B from Meta with Kimi K2.7 Code from Moonshot AI? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Muse Glimmer 30B | Kimi K2.7 Code | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Muse Glimmer 30B vs Kimi K2.7 Code FAQ
Which is better, Muse Glimmer 30B or Kimi K2.7 Code?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Muse Glimmer 30B is about 2.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.6375 vs $1.40 per 1M tokens). Kimi K2.7 Code has the larger context window (262,144 tokens vs 131,072 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Muse Glimmer 30B is about 2.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.6375 vs $1.40 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
Kimi K2.7 Code has the larger context window (262,144 tokens vs 131,072 tokens).
Can I switch between Muse Glimmer 30B and Kimi K2.7 Code?
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.
Related comparisons
More Muse Glimmer 30B comparisons
Sakana Namazu
Sakana AI
Sakana Namazu is a Japanese-specialized reasoning model from Sakana AI, based on Kimi K2.6 with additional training for Japanese language and business contexts.
Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship model in Alibaba's Qwen3.8 series, the general-availability successor to the Qwen3.8 Max Preview.
Seed-2.0-Code
ByteDance
Seed 2.0 Code is a model from ByteDance Seed optimized for agentic coding.
Inkling Small
Thinking Machines
Inkling Small is an open-weight multimodal mixture-of-experts model from Thinking Machines Lab, with 12B active parameters out of 276B total.
Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen
Qwen3.7 Flash is a vision-language reasoning model from Alibaba.
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
Claude Opus 5 is Anthropic’s flagship model for demanding reasoning, coding, and long-horizon agentic work.
More Kimi K2.7 Code comparisons
Seed-2.0-Code
ByteDance
Seed 2.0 Code is a model from ByteDance Seed optimized for agentic coding.
GPT-5.3-Codex
OpenAI
GPT-5.3-Codex is OpenAI’s most advanced agentic coding model, combining the frontier software engineering performance of GPT-5.2-Codex with the broader reasoning and professional knowledge capabilities of GPT-5.2.
GPT-5.2-Codex
OpenAI
GPT-5.2-Codex is an upgraded version of GPT-5.1-Codex optimized for software engineering and coding workflows.
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
OpenAI
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max is OpenAI’s latest agentic coding model, designed for long-running, high-context software development tasks.
Sakana Namazu
Sakana AI
Sakana Namazu is a Japanese-specialized reasoning model from Sakana AI, based on Kimi K2.6 with additional training for Japanese language and business contexts.
Muse Spark 1.2
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 is a reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex agentic tasks.