Skip to main content
AI Choice Engine

Model comparison

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.2

Two Meta tiers compared on the figures that decide which one a workload actually needs.

Recorded profile verification October 2, 2026Individual provider fields may changeEvidence confidence: Insufficient data — see receipts below

Meta

Muse Glimmer 30B

Balanced · Open weights

vs

Meta

Muse Spark 1.2

Frontier

AI model capability comparison
SpecificationMuse Glimmer 30BMuse Spark 1.2
ProviderMetaMeta
TierBalancedFrontier
Context window131KWinner: 1.05M
Max outputNot verifiedUnverifiedNot verifiedUnverified
Input / 1M tokensNot verifiedUnverified$1.25
Output / 1M tokensNot verifiedUnverified$4.25
WeightsOpenClosed
Parameters~29.6B total including vision (dense; marketed as 30B)Not verifiedUnverified
Reasoning levelslow, medium, high, xhighminimal, low, medium, high, xhigh
Modalitiestext, imagetext, image, video, audio, pdf
LicenseApache 2.0Not verifiedUnverified
API model idNot verifiedUnverifiedmuse-spark-1.2
ReleasedAugust 10, 2026August 5, 2026

Dates beside benchmark scores refer to the linked source’s publication or capture date unless that source explicitly states when it measured the result. A shared URL alone does not establish comparable runs; unverified setups are marked. Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.

Pricing tiers

Muse Glimmer 30B: Apache 2.0 weights, not served by Meta Model API; no first-party token tariff is verified. Self-hosting incurs compute/storage costs. Native config context is 131,072; longer-context support is a publisher claim, not an independently verified maximum.

Muse Spark 1.2: Meta Standard $1.25/$4.25 per MTok, cached $0.15; no long-context premium. Separate muse-spark-1.2-contributor is $0.10/$0.20, cached $0.002, granting training permission for prompts/completions. Search grounding adds $2.50 per 1,000 queries.

BalancedOpen weightsRecord checked October 2, 2026

Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B is Meta's open-weight smaller Muse model for efficient self-hosting.

Best for

  • Open-weight deployments
  • Single-GPU serving
  • Cost-sensitive

Watch out

Template reasoning_strength supports low/medium/high/xhigh, default high. BF16 download is about 60GB; published 17GB/20GB GGUFs need a separate 1.4GB vision projector and optional 1.6GB draft. Meta targets 24GB/32GB hardware by build; actual fit and speed depend on runtime/context. Native Transformers support requires 5.15+. A separate hard output cap remains unknown.

FrontierRecord checked October 2, 2026

Muse Spark 1.2

Muse Spark 1.2 is Meta's previous version, still listed on the Model API alongside the 1.3 refresh.

Best for

  • Frontier reasoning
  • Meta ecosystem
  • Agentic work

Watch out

Closed weights and still in the current public catalog. Minimal/low/medium/high/xhigh are supported; none returns HTTP 400. Max is restricted to Standard Spark 1.3. Audio is listed without 1.3's degradation warning. Reasoning counts toward output budget and billing. Exact hard output cap and parameter count remain unverified; quotas are per team.

When the cheaper one wins

One of these rows is missing a verified output price, so this page will not name a cheaper winner. Run the model picker against the actual job instead of guessing.

Run the model picker

Evidence confidence: Insufficient data

How strong and complete the evidence behind this comparison is — not a prediction of which model is better. Hard limitations apply: missing pricing; evidence too sparse.

  • Pricing incomplete — No verified token pricing for Muse Glimmer 30B.
  • 3/5 core specs verified on both sides — Not published for at least one side: max output, parameter count.
  • No directly aligned benchmark setup — No benchmark has matching cited sources, source dates, units, effort and recorded run details on both models.
  • Verified within the last 90 days — Older of the two catalog checks was 24 days ago.
  • Both models carry source citations — Each side has at least two catalog sources on record.

Source receipts

Each catalog figure was checked against the provider or an independent second source on the date shown.

Related comparisons

Diving deeper on one model? Muse Glimmer 30B · Muse Spark 1.2

Common questions

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.2

Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.

Which has the larger context window, Muse Glimmer 30B or Muse Spark 1.2?
Muse Spark 1.2 accepts 1.05M tokens against 131K for Muse Glimmer 30B. This only matters if you routinely send very long documents or large codebases.
Do Muse Glimmer 30B and Muse Spark 1.2 support the same reasoning levels?
Muse Glimmer 30B exposes low, medium, high, xhigh, while Muse Spark 1.2 exposes minimal, low, medium, high, xhigh.
Should I use Muse Glimmer 30B or Muse Spark 1.2?
We classify Muse Glimmer 30B in the balanced tier and Muse Spark 1.2 in the frontier tier. Test whether either meets your accuracy, tool-use and latency requirements before choosing on price.
Can I self-host Muse Glimmer 30B or Muse Spark 1.2?
Muse Glimmer 30B publishes open weights, but self-hosting and third-party provider access depend on the licence, hardware, serving support, and availability. Muse Spark 1.2 is a closed model whose supported access paths are controlled by its provider.

Next step

Choosing between them

The verified figures that separate this pair, computed from the catalog rather than restated boilerplate.

  • Context: Muse Spark 1.2 takes 1.05M against 131K for Muse Glimmer 30B — only decisive if your prompts approach the smaller window.
  • Deployment: Muse Glimmer 30B publishes weights you can self-host; the other is API-only.
  • Positioning: Muse Glimmer 30B sits in the balanced tier, Muse Spark 1.2 in the frontier tier. Compare accuracy, reliability, latency, and cost on representative tasks before choosing.
Run the model pickerEstimate stack costAll model comparisons

Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.