Muse Glimmer 30B Open vs 
o1 Paid
Muse Glimmer 30B vs o1 compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Can the open-source model replace the paid one? Full 2026 breakdown.
Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai
Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.
$1.1 /M outputNo per-token fees if you self-host
$60 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
Muse Glimmer 30B vs o1 specs
| Spec | Muse Glimmer 30B | o1 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meta | OpenAI | – |
| Type | Open-weight | Proprietary | |
| Context window | 131K tokens | 200K tokens | |
| Input price | $0.3/M · free self-host | $15/M | |
| Output price | $1.1/M · free self-host | $60/M | |
| Vision / multimodal | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Tool / function calling | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No (API only) | |
| License | Open weights | Proprietary |
Price gap & when to choose each
Muse Glimmer 30B is ~55× cheaper than o1 on output tokens ($1.1 vs $60 per M tokens).
- You want to self-host or run on your cloud
- You prioritize data privacy & control
- You want the lowest operating costs
- You are building open or reproducible AI
- You want frontier performance through a managed API
- You need the longer 200K context window
- You value reliability & ecosystem
- You don't want to manage infrastructure
Feature comparison
| Capability | Muse Glimmer 30B | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Open weights (downloadable) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Self-hostable | ✓ | ✗ |
| Runs fully offline | ✓ | ✗ |
| Vision / multimodal | ✓ | ✓ |
| Tool / function calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1M+ context window | ✗ | ✗ |
Benchmarks: Muse Glimmer 30B vs o1
Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.
How Muse Glimmer 30B and o1 score
| Criterion | Muse Glimmer 30B | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost-efficiency | 4.5 | 2.0 |
| Context window | 3.5 | 4.0 |
| Openness | 5.0 | 1.5 |
| Self-hosting | 5.0 | 1.0 |
| Multimodality | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.
What each model is
Muse Glimmer 30B Open
Muse Glimmer 30B is a dense, open-weight multimodal model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, distilled from Muse Spark and optimized for autonomous agents on consumer hardware. It is suited for long-horizon...
o1 Paid
The latest and strongest model family from OpenAI, o1 is designed to spend more time thinking before responding. The o1 model series is trained with large-scale reinforcement learning to reason...
Other models in these families
These variants are tracked but not compared here — one page per family keeps the comparison readable.
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Glimmer 30B as good as o1?
Muse Glimmer 30B is open-weight and competitive on many tasks, but o1 may still lead on the hardest reasoning and agentic work. The gap keeps narrowing — benchmark both on your actual use case before deciding.
Can I run Muse Glimmer 30B locally?
Yes. Muse Glimmer 30B has open weights, so you can self-host it on your own GPUs or run it via a low-cost API. o1 is API-only and cannot be self-hosted.
How much cheaper is Muse Glimmer 30B?
Muse Glimmer 30B costs $1.1/M output vs $60/M for o1 — roughly 55x cheaper via API, and free if you self-host.
Muse Glimmer 30B vs o1 — which should I pick in 2026?
Choose Muse Glimmer 30B if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose o1 if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.
People also compare
Explore more open-source AI
Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.
Open the leaderboard →