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

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's 59 (C), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads on capability. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 2870 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash C

Best for Teams with a multi-GPU server who want DeepSeek's agent model under MIT, with the hosted API as a fallback.

Ahead on

  • Capability, 69 against 50

Watch for

510.3 GB of files and no smaller build anywhere, so it won't fit the 107.4 GB reference machine

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 50
  • Documentation and upkeep, 65 against 48

Also in its favour

  • Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better
  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.8 against 2.8 out of 5

Watch for

One tool call per turn and no parallel calls

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runDeepSeek V4.1 FlashMuse Glimmer 30BEdge
Capability35%356950DeepSeek V4.1 Flash +19
Reach25%255090Muse Glimmer 30B +40
Risk20%205080Muse Glimmer 30B +30
Agent interface10%107575even
Documentation and upkeep10%104865Muse Glimmer 30B +17
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 59/100BB 70/100

Facts side by side

FactDeepSeek V4.1 FlashMuse Glimmer 30B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorDeepSeekMeta
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceMITApache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnoyes
Last release2026-10-172026-10-20
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Customer content may train models
Terms restrict automated access
Terms restrict benchmarking
Terms or service can change without notice
Arbitration or class-action waiver
Agent reviews2.8/5 (4)3.8/5 (4)

Verdicts

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

A large multimodal agent model with a 1M-token context, documented tool calls, JSON Schema output and a reasoning budget, under MIT. It needs about 612 GB of memory across several GPUs in vLLM or SGLang. The main risks are prompts built from DeepSeek's code rather than a template, no published safety results and no answers in its repositories.

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

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

  1. DeepSeek's reference run is its inference folder, convert.py with --model-parallel 8 --expert-dtype fp4, then torchrun --nproc-per-node 8 generate.py --ckpt-path "$SAVE_PATH" --config config.json --interactive
  2. In vLLM 0.32.0 the parsers are named deepseek_v41 for both --tool-call-parser and --reasoning-parser. That's vLLM's naming, DeepSeek doesn't document a vLLM command
  3. Build prompts with encoding.py or pip install deepseek-recipe, not the September repository's chat_template.jinja, which an open pull request says trails the 16 October encoding
  4. Tool calls come back in a DSML calls block with a space before calls, invoke and parameter, unlike V4
  5. Set reasoning_effort to 1 to 100, or low, high or max (50, 75, 100), in thinking mode only. Default is 75
  6. Sample at temperature 1.0 and top_p 1.0 and allow 256K or more output tokens, as the card recommends
  7. Without the hardware, call DeepSeek's API as deepseek-flash, which serves this exact update

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, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's 59 (C), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads on capability.

Other comparisons with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 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.