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

Inkling-Small vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Inkling-Small's 66.5 (B), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. Inkling-Small leads on capability, 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

Inkling-Small B

Best for Teams with 256 GB or more of datacentre GPU memory who want an open multimodal agent model with audio input and adjustable thinking.

Ahead on

  • Capability, 63 against 50
  • Agent interface, 85 against 75
  • Documentation and upkeep, 82 against 65

Watch for

The smallest build Thinking Machines publishes needs about 205 GB

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 55
  • Risk, 80 against 70

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 runInkling-SmallMuse Glimmer 30BEdge
Capability35%356350Inkling-Small +13
Reach25%255590Muse Glimmer 30B +35
Risk20%207080Muse Glimmer 30B +10
Agent interface10%108575Inkling-Small +10
Documentation and upkeep10%108265Inkling-Small +17
Negative events≤1500
TotalB 66.5/100BB 70/100

Facts side by side

FactInkling-SmallMuse Glimmer 30B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorThinking Machines LabMeta
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnoyes
Last release2026-07-312026-10-20
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 reviews3.5/5 (4)3.8/5 (4)

Verdicts

Inkling-Small

A mixture-of-experts generalist with images and audio in, several tool calls a turn and per-request thinking effort. It needs about 205 GB for Thinking Machines' NVFP4 build on recent NVIDIA or AMD datacentre GPUs, and Tinker or DeepInfra host it. The main risks are a use policy that binds on download and can change, and no outside safety results.

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

Inkling-Small

  1. Start the NVFP4 build with SGLang's recipe, sglang serve --trust-remote-code --model-path thinkingmachines/Inkling-Small-NVFP4 --tp 8 --enable-multimodal --reasoning-parser inkling --tool-call-parser inkling, on Blackwell for W4A4
  2. Use the inkling tool and reasoning parsers in vLLM or SGLang, or Thinking Machines' tml-renderers package to render prompts and parse calls yourself
  3. Pass reasoning_effort as none, minimal, low, medium, high (the default) or max, or a number from 0 to 0.99. The repository's template has no xhigh preset and raises an error for it, though Thinking Machines' docs and SGLang's cookbook list xhigh
  4. Effort none conditions the model toward no reasoning but doesn't forbid it, and higher effort needs a larger max_tokens
  5. Tool call arguments must reach the template as an object, not a JSON string, or it raises an error
  6. Images should be 40 to 4096 px a side and audio 16 kHz WAV under two minutes, per the card
  7. Use guided decoding or validate JSON yourself, since structured output isn't documented
  8. Read the Model Acceptable Use Policy before deploying, it binds on download and bars some uses that are legal

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, Inkling-Small or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Inkling-Small's 66.5 (B), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. Inkling-Small leads on capability, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with Inkling-Small 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.