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

Granite 4.2 3B vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Granite 4.2 3B's 59.8 (C), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. Granite 4.2 3B leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep. 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

Granite 4.2 3B C

Best for Agents on small hardware that want a permissive reasoning model for tool calls and coding, with thinking they can switch off

Ahead on

  • Reach, 95 against 90
  • Agent interface, 85 against 75
  • Documentation and upkeep, 92 against 65

Watch for

No safety results published for 4.2, and only general safety cautions

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

  • Capability, 50 against 21
  • Risk, 80 against 55

Also in its favour

  • Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better

Watch for

One tool call per turn and no parallel calls

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runGranite 4.2 3BMuse Glimmer 30BEdge
Capability35%352150Muse Glimmer 30B +29
Reach25%259590Granite 4.2 3B +5
Risk20%205580Muse Glimmer 30B +25
Agent interface10%108575Granite 4.2 3B +10
Documentation and upkeep10%109265Granite 4.2 3B +27
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 59.8/100BB 70/100

Facts side by side

FactGranite 4.2 3BMuse Glimmer 30B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorIBMMeta
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnoyes
Last release2026-10-202026-10-20
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

Granite 4.2 3B

A small reasoning cousin for tool calls, coding and multilingual chat that runs almost anywhere, from a 2.2 GB Ollama build to vLLM and SGLang, under plain Apache 2.0 with signed files and a dataset disclosure. Thinking turns off or shortens per request. It has no published safety results and no documented JSON mode.

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

Granite 4.2 3B

  1. Start it with ollama run granite4.2:3b; set options.num_ctx in the request, since Ollama's default context is short and the model takes up to 131,072
  2. With vLLM 0.32.0 or later, serve ibm-granite/granite-4.2-3b with --reasoning-parser granite_thinking_parser --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder --enable-auto-tool-choice; that release has the parser built in, so the card's --reasoning-parser-plugin ./granite_thinking_parser.py isn't needed
  3. With SGLang 0.5.18 or later, --reasoning-parser auto --tool-call-parser auto resolve to IBM's recommended parsers, and the reasoning comes back in reasoning_content
  4. Use temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95 for every mode, as IBM requires
  5. Pass enable_thinking false for direct answers or low_effort true for short reasoning, through chat_template_kwargs on an OpenAI-compatible server
  6. Earlier turns' thinking is stripped by default (truncate_history_thinking), so pass it false to keep reasoning in multi-turn history
  7. For JSON, use the runtime's guided decoding, since IBM documents no JSON mode for 4.2
  8. Verify the files with python -m model_signing verify sigstore and IBM's identity, per IBM's signature guide

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, Granite 4.2 3B or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Granite 4.2 3B's 59.8 (C), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. Granite 4.2 3B leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with Granite 4.2 3B 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.