// head_to_head
Muse Glimmer 30B vs MiniMax M3
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
Muse Glimmer 30B and MiniMax M3 are priced within ~10% of each other.
Muse Glimmer 30B does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
meta
Muse Glimmer 30B
- Blended / 1M
- $0.525
- Context
- 131K
- Released
- Aug 9, 2026
- Overall score
- Not evaluated
minimax
MiniMax M3
- Blended / 1M
- $0.525
- Context
- 1.0M
- Released
- May 31, 2026
- Overall score
- 67.3
Specs and pricing
| Metric | Muse Glimmer 30B | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | — | 67.3 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | — | $0.0339 |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $0.525 | $0.525 |
| Input price / 1M | $0.300 | $0.300 |
| Output price / 1M | $1.20 | $1.20 |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.040win | $0.060 |
| Context window | 131K | 1.0Mwin |
| Max output tokens | 16K | 512Kwin |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Muse Glimmer 30B on top, MiniMax M3 below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | Muse Glimmer 30B | MiniMax M3 |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $149.28/mo | $150.72/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $208.00/mo | $216.00/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $190.40/mo | $201.60/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $377.00/mo | $378.00/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $740.00/mo | $750.00/mo |
Which should you pick?
You need to fit large documents in one call
MiniMax M3
Wider context window — 1.0M against 131K.
Muse Glimmer 30B vs MiniMax M3 FAQ
Which is better, Muse Glimmer 30B or MiniMax M3?
Muse Glimmer 30B and MiniMax M3 are priced within ~10% of each other. Muse Glimmer 30B does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
Is Muse Glimmer 30B cheaper than MiniMax M3?
They cost about the same. Both land near $0.525 per million tokens on a 3:1 input:output blend, so price is unlikely to be the deciding factor between them.
Does Muse Glimmer 30B or MiniMax M3 have a bigger context window?
MiniMax M3 has the larger context window: 131K for Muse Glimmer 30B against 1.0M for MiniMax M3. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.
Do Muse Glimmer 30B and MiniMax M3 support prompt caching?
Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.040 per million for Muse Glimmer 30B and $0.060 for MiniMax M3, against full input rates of $0.300 and $0.300. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.