Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

Arete-27B vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Arete-27B's 55.1 (C), and leads in every scored category. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 4969 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

Arete-27B C

Best for Agents that want Qwen3.8-27B's coding and tool use without its handling of politically sensitive topics, on a 24 GB card or a 128 GB machine

No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.

Watch for

No quantised build from Nous Research, so the GGUF route depends on a third party

Muse Glimmer 30B BB

Best for Local agents and coding with image input on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or an Apple silicon laptop, where one tool call per turn is enough

Ahead on

  • Reach, 90 against 50
  • Risk, 80 against 55
  • Agent interface, 75 against 60

Also in its favour

  • Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better

Watch for

One tool call per turn and no parallel calls

Why the edge

Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.

Reach Muse Glimmer 30B +40

Arete-27B 50

Memory 10, the only build from Nous Research is the 54.7 GB BF16 release, which needs about 66 GB and fits the reference machine. Runtimes 15, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers run the base's architecture from those files, and llama.cpp isn't credited because Nous Research publishes no GGUF. Builds 0, no quantised build of its own. Terms 15, Apache 2.0. Download 10, not gated. Hosted 0, no provider. 10 + 15 + 0 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 50.

Muse Glimmer 30B 90

Memory 25, Meta's 16.8 GB Q4_K_M GGUF needs about 20 GB with the runtime's fifth, so it fits a 24 GB card but not 16 GB. Runtimes 25, released model code in vLLM, SGLang, Transformers, llama.cpp and Ollama's library fills the cap. Builds 15, Meta publishes GGUF and ExecuTorch 4-bit builds, read as two kinds as gemma-4-31b-it was, though all are 4-bit k-quants. Terms 10, Apache 2.0 with a usage policy that adds limits beyond the law, so a free commercial licence under a use policy. Download 10, no repository is gated. Hosted 5, Meta's API doesn't serve it but Together, Featherless AI and DeepInfra are live on its Hub page.

Risk Muse Glimmer 30B +25

Arete-27B 55

File safety 25, safetensors only and no remote code. Provenance 15, Nous Research's own organisation, linked from its blog, with a hash on every file. Safety evaluation 0 and agent guidance 0, nothing published on either. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw found. 25 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 55.

Muse Glimmer 30B 80

File safety 25, safetensors and GGUF, with the ExecuTorch pos_embed.bin files read as raw embedding tables by their exact size and the Hub's scans, and no repository code runs. Provenance 15, the verified meta-models organisation Meta links, with a checksum on every file. Safety evaluation 10, Meta's own published results with stated set-ups but nothing to rerun and no outside assessor. Agent guidance 15, trained against indirect prompt injection with a principal hierarchy, and results published. Licence risk 10, 5 off for the use policy, and the policy's pointer to a latest copy leads back to the same repository file with no change clause. Security programme 5, a whitehat route in the usage policy, with no security.txt and public advisories unchecked, so scored as absent.

Agent interface Muse Glimmer 30B +15

Arete-27B 60

Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says it. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn and agentic work as an intended use. Structured output 0 and reasoning control 0, neither is documented on the card. Context 10, 262,144 tokens native. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.

Muse Glimmer 30B 75

Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 25, Meta documents declaring tools, the ATEM block that comes back and the parser for each runtime. Trained tool calling 10, one call per turn and no parallel calls. Structured output 0, nothing documented for JSON or JSON Schema. Reasoning control 10, reasoning can't be turned off but is budgeted per request with four strength levels and returned as reasoning_content. Context 10, 131,072 tokens trained in.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runArete-27BMuse Glimmer 30BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%255090Muse Glimmer 30B +40
Risk20%205580Muse Glimmer 30B +25
Agent interface10%106075Muse Glimmer 30B +15
Documentation and upkeep10%106365Muse Glimmer 30B +2
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 55.1/100BB 70/100

Facts side by side

FactArete-27BMuse Glimmer 30B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorNous ResearchMeta
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnoyes
Last release2026-11-062026-10-20
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviewsnone3.8/5 (4)

Verdicts

Arete-27B

Qwen3.8-27B with its answers on politically sensitive topics retrained, four days old when read. The training data is published, which is rare. Nous Research ships BF16 only, so a small machine runs it from bartowski's GGUF, and the card documents none of the tool or thinking controls it inherits.

Muse Glimmer 30B

A dense 30B multimodal cousin for local agent and coding work with images, documented tool calls and adjustable reasoning. Meta's 17 GB GGUF fits a 24 GB card and runs in llama.cpp, Ollama, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers. The main risks are one tool call per turn, no documented JSON output and a usage policy that adds limits to Apache 2.0.

Before you call either

Arete-27B

  1. Start it with llama-server -hf bartowski/NousResearch_Arete-27B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja, a third party's conversion, or serve the BF16 files with vLLM
  2. Use the base's parsers in vLLM, --reasoning-parser qwen3 --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, and check tool calls first, since the template differs slightly from Qwen3.8-27B's
  3. Thinking switches with enable_thinking in the template. The card's own evaluation ran with it off
  4. Expect answers on politically sensitive topics to differ from Qwen3.8-27B's. That is what the fine-tune is for
  5. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

Muse Glimmer 30B

  1. Start it with llama serve -hf meta-models/Muse-Glimmer-30B-GGUF --hf-file Muse-Glimmer-30B-KQuant-17GB-Q4_K_M.gguf -ngl 99 -c 131072 --host 127.0.0.1 --port 8080 --chat-template-kwargs '{"reasoning_strength":"high"}' on llama.cpp b10353 or later, or ollama run muse-glimmer on Ollama 0.32.7 or later
  2. In vLLM pass --tool-call-parser muse_glimmer --reasoning-parser muse_glimmer, in SGLang muse for both, in ExecuTorch --tool-parser atem. Without them tool calls come back as plain text
  3. Set reasoning per request with chat_template_kwargs.reasoning_strength (low, medium, high or xhigh). llama.cpp and ExecuTorch don't read reasoning_effort, and ExecuTorch rejects it with a 400
  4. Expect one tool call per turn and return each result before the next. ExecuTorch's server rejects tool_choice="required"
  5. Keep temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 64, don't run greedy, and never stop on <|eom|>
  6. Leave max_tokens room for reasoning, since in llama.cpp a request cut off mid-thought returns empty content with finish_reason length
  7. For images add Meta's 1.4 GB mmproj GGUF, which takes the build to about 22 GB with the runtime's fifth

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Arete-27B or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Arete-27B's 55.1 (C), and leads in every scored category.

Other comparisons with Arete-27B or Muse Glimmer 30B

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.