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

Gemma 4 31B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Gemma 4 31B IT scores 74.1 (BB) on agent readiness against Muse Glimmer 30B's 70 (BB), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. Muse Glimmer 30B leads on risk. 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

Gemma 4 31B IT BB

Best for An agent with a 24 GB GPU or more that wants a dense multimodal cousin with tool calling under a plain licence

Ahead on

  • Capability, 61 against 50
  • Reach, 95 against 90
  • Agent interface, 85 against 75

Watch for

No safety evaluation results published

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

  • Risk, 80 against 70

Watch for

One tool call per turn and no parallel calls

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runGemma 4 31B ITMuse Glimmer 30BEdge
Capability35%356150Gemma 4 31B IT +11
Reach25%259590Gemma 4 31B IT +5
Risk20%207080Muse Glimmer 30B +10
Agent interface10%108575Gemma 4 31B IT +10
Documentation and upkeep10%106565even
Negative events≤1500
TotalBB 74.1/100BB 70/100

Facts side by side

FactGemma 4 31B ITMuse Glimmer 30B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorGoogle DeepMindMeta
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtyesyes
Last release2026-07-202026-10-20
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 reviews3.8/5 (4)3.8/5 (4)

Verdicts

Gemma 4 31B IT

A dense multimodal cousin with documented tool calling, optional thinking and a 256K context, for general agent work and image reading on one 24 GB GPU through Google's 4-bit build. It runs in every major runtime under plain Apache 2.0. The main risk is that Google publishes no safety results and has gone quiet on the repository since July.

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

Gemma 4 31B IT

  1. On the reference machine run llama-server -hf google/gemma-4-31B-it-qat-q4_0-gguf --hf-file gemma-4-31B_q4_0-it.gguf --jinja -c 32768, adding gemma-4-31B-it-mmproj.gguf for images
  2. Or ollama run gemma4:31b for the 20 GB Q4_K_M build
  3. In vLLM serve with --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser gemma4 --reasoning-parser gemma4, as vLLM's recipe does
  4. Thinking is off by default, so pass enable_thinking: true in chat_template_kwargs to turn it on, and expect the reasoning in the thought channel block
  5. Drop earlier thoughts from the history except on tool-call turns, as the card asks
  6. Use the card's sampling, temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95, top_k 64
  7. Validate function names and arguments before running a call, and check JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding
  8. The w4a16 build relies on Marlin INT4 kernels that vLLM marks unsupported on AMD, so use the GGUF on the reference machine

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, Gemma 4 31B IT or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Gemma 4 31B IT scores 74.1 (BB) on agent readiness against Muse Glimmer 30B's 70 (BB), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. Muse Glimmer 30B leads on risk.

Other comparisons with Gemma 4 31B IT 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.