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

LFM3-1.7B vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against LFM3-1.7B's 61 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LFM3-1.7B leads on agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 6359 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

LFM3-1.7B C

Best for Agents on a laptop, phone or small server that need tool calling and a long context from a model under 2 GB at 4 bits

Ahead on

  • Agent interface, 100 against 75

Watch for

vLLM and SGLang have no released support, though the card lists both

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 85
  • Risk, 80 against 40

Also in its favour

  • Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better

Watch for

One tool call per turn and no parallel calls

Why the edge

Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.

Risk Muse Glimmer 30B +40

LFM3-1.7B 40

File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, files in the LiquidAI organisation, which Liquid's docs page for the model and its blog post link to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card or in Liquid's blog post for the LFM3 family, neither of which mentions safety testing. Agent guidance 0, Nothing on prompt injection, an instruction hierarchy, what refusals cover or safeguards to add. Licence risk 10, 15 less 5 for the $10M annual revenue threshold on commercial use. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw found. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 10 + 0 = 40.

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 repository code runs. Provenance 15, the verified meta-models organisation Meta links, with a checksum on every file. Safety evaluation 10, Meta's own published results with stated set-ups but nothing to rerun and no outside assessor. Agent guidance 15, trained against indirect prompt injection with a principal hierarchy, and results published. Licence risk 10, 5 off for the use policy, and the policy's pointer to a latest copy leads back to the same repository file with no change clause. Security programme 5, a whitehat route in the usage policy, with no security.txt and public advisories unchecked, so scored as absent.

Agent interface LFM3-1.7B +25

LFM3-1.7B 100

Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (12,129 characters), with roles, tools, deferred tools, tool results and the thinking switch. Tool-calling format 25, the card and Liquid's tool-use page document tools passed through tools= in apply_chat_template, calls returned as XML and results sent back as tool messages. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over every entry in an assistant turn's tool_calls, so several calls fit in one turn, and the card says the model was trained on tool calls and agentic traces and with reinforcement learning inside agent harnesses. Structured output 15, Liquid's API guide documents response_format with a JSON Schema, with lfm3-1.7b as the model in its examples, and says the schema is checked before generation starts. Reasoning control 10, the card documents enable_thinking=False in the chat template to turn reasoning off per request, with reasoning on by default inside think tags, and preserve_thinking for earlier turns. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, which says the mid-training stage extended the context window to 256K, and max_position_embeddings 262144 in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 15 + 10 + 10 = 100.

Muse Glimmer 30B 75

Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 25, Meta documents declaring tools, the ATEM block that comes back and the parser for each runtime. Trained tool calling 10, one call per turn and no parallel calls. Structured output 0, nothing documented for JSON or JSON Schema. Reasoning control 10, reasoning can't be turned off but is budgeted per request with four strength levels and returned as reasoning_content. Context 10, 131,072 tokens trained in.

Reach Muse Glimmer 30B +5

LFM3-1.7B 85

Memory 30, Liquid's Q4_K_M GGUF is 1.10 GB, and 1.10 GB × 1.2 = 1.3 GB, which fits 8 GB, well inside the 16 GB line. Runtimes 15, Released llama.cpp has the lfm3 architecture (src/models/lfm3.cpp at b12242), Ollama's library has an lfm3 entry, and LM Studio's catalogue runs the architecture (its liquid/lfm3-vl-2b entry; lmstudio-community publishes a GGUF of this model). Builds 15, Liquid's GGUF repository holds Q4_0, Q4_K_M, Q8_0, F16 and BF16 files, and Liquid publishes 4-bit and 8-bit MLX builds and an ONNX repository, all in the LiquidAI organisation. Terms 10, the LFM Open License v1.0, a custom licence that lets anyone use it commercially for free below a threshold of $10M annual revenue. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its GGUF, MLX and ONNX repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 5, Liquid's own API lists lfm3-1.7b among its models, so the publisher hosts it. 30 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 85.

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. Runtimes 25, released model code in vLLM, SGLang, Transformers, llama.cpp and Ollama's library fills the cap. Builds 15, Meta publishes GGUF and ExecuTorch 4-bit builds, read as two kinds as gemma-4-31b-it was, though all are 4-bit k-quants. Terms 10, Apache 2.0 with a usage policy that adds limits beyond the law, so a free commercial licence under a use policy. Download 10, no repository is gated. Hosted 5, Meta's API doesn't serve it but Together, Featherless AI and DeepInfra are live on its Hub page.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runLFM3-1.7BMuse Glimmer 30BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258590Muse Glimmer 30B +5
Risk20%204080Muse Glimmer 30B +40
Agent interface10%1010075LFM3-1.7B +25
Documentation and upkeep10%106765LFM3-1.7B +2
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100BB 70/100

Facts side by side

FactLFM3-1.7BMuse Glimmer 30B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorLiquid AIMeta
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceLFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue)Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtyesyes
Last release2026-11-092026-10-20
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviewsnone3.8/5 (4)

Verdicts

LFM3-1.7B

A 1.73B model that fits an 8 GB machine with room to spare, with a documented tool-call format, deferred tools, a thinking switch and a 256K context. It runs today in llama.cpp, Ollama and LM Studio only, loads in Transformers through repository code, and has no safety results, security contact or data sources.

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

LFM3-1.7B

  1. Start it with llama-server -hf LiquidAI/LFM3-1.7B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja or ollama run lfm3
  2. Use temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition penalty 1.1 for chat, tools and agents, per the card
  3. Pass enable_thinking=False for direct answers, and expect it to reason anyway on hard tasks
  4. For a large tool catalogue mark tools defer_loading and give it a search tool
  5. Don't plan on vLLM or SGLang until a release carries LFM3
  6. Liquid doesn't recommend it for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning

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, LFM3-1.7B or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against LFM3-1.7B's 61 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LFM3-1.7B leads on agent interface.

Other comparisons with LFM3-1.7B 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.