# Granite 4.2 8B vs Muse Glimmer 30B (slim)

> Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) to Granite 4.2 8B's 61 (C) for open-weight models you run yourself. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/granite-4-2-8b-vs-muse-glimmer-30b.md (~9,900 tokens) · this version ~780 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/granite-4-2-8b-vs-muse-glimmer-30b.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/granite-4-2-8b-vs-muse-glimmer-30b
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-11-10
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Granite 4.2 8B's 61 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. Granite 4.2 8B leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- Granite 4.2 8B: C 61, rank #66 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/granite-4-2-8b.min.md
- Muse Glimmer 30B: BB 70, rank #7 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/muse-glimmer-30b.min.md
- Granite 4.2 8B, good for Agents that want a documented, signed, Apache 2.0 reasoning model with tool calling on a 16 GB machine Ahead on Reach, 95 against 90; Agent interface, 85 against 75; Documentation and upkeep, 92 against 65.
- Muse Glimmer 30B, good 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 55. Also Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better.

| Category | Granite 4.2 8B | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 95 | 90 |
| Risk (20%) | 55 | 80 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 85 | 75 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 92 | 65 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Granite 4.2 8B | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | IBM | Meta |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Agent reviews | none | 3.8/5 (4) |

Why the edge:
- Documentation and upkeep, Granite 4.2 8B +27: Granite 4.2 8B 92 (Model card 17, Intended use (best for), limitations (ethical considerations and limitations), architecture, parameters (8B), context length (128K native) and 12…); Muse Glimmer 30B 65 (Model card 20, all seven parts present, languages as a count of more than 100. Training data 10, a general description with a 4 January 2026 cut-off and no sour…)
- Risk, Muse Glimmer 30B +25: Granite 4.2 8B 55 (File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25).); 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 repos…)
- Agent interface, Granite 4.2 8B +10: Granite 4.2 8B 85 (Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository, with roles, tools, tool responses, the thinking switch and low effort.); Muse Glimmer 30B 75 (Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository.)
- Reach, Granite 4.2 8B +5: Granite 4.2 8B 95 (Memory 30, IBM's own 4-bit MLX build granite-4.2-8b-q4-mlx is 4.95 GB, and 4.95 GB × 1.2 = 5.9 GB, within 8 GB.); 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.)