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

MiniCPM5-2B vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against MiniCPM5-2B's 60.2 (C), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. MiniCPM5-2B leads on 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

MiniCPM5-2B C

Best for On-device and laptop agents that want a 2 GB tool-calling helper with long context and open training data

Ahead on

  • Documentation and upkeep, 97 against 65

Watch for

OpenBMB documents only a Think mode for the 2B, so every answer starts with reasoning

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 27
  • Risk, 80 against 55

Also in its favour

  • Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better
  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.8 against 3.0 out of 5

Watch for

One tool call per turn and no parallel calls

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runMiniCPM5-2BMuse Glimmer 30BEdge
Capability35%352750Muse Glimmer 30B +23
Reach25%259090even
Risk20%205580Muse Glimmer 30B +25
Agent interface10%107575even
Documentation and upkeep10%109765MiniCPM5-2B +32
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 60.2/100BB 70/100

Facts side by side

FactMiniCPM5-2BMuse Glimmer 30B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorOpenBMBMeta
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnoyes
Last release2026-09-292026-10-20
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 (4)3.8/5 (4)

Verdicts

MiniCPM5-2B

A tiny dense cousin for local tool calling and long context, with published training data and an active publisher. OpenBMB's own 4-bit builds need about 2 GB, so it runs on a laptop or phone in vLLM, SGLang, llama.cpp, Ollama or Transformers. The main risks are always-on thinking, no safety results and use conditions beyond Apache 2.0.

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

MiniCPM5-2B

  1. Smallest start is ollama run openbmb/minicpm5-2b (1.6 GB, q4_k_m)
  2. On vLLM 0.29.0 or later run vllm serve openbmb/MiniCPM5-2B --max-model-len 131072 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser minicpm5, or tool calls come back as XML text
  3. On SGLang 0.5.16 or later add --tool-call-parser minicpm5 --reasoning-parser qwen3; SGLang is OpenBMB's recommended backend for tool calls
  4. Tool calls are XML, <function name=...><param name=...>, not Hermes JSON
  5. Sample with temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and min_p 0.0; llama.cpp's default min_p 0.05 can loop, and repetition_penalty 1.05 helps if it does
  6. Expect a <think> block before every answer and leave room in max_tokens; enable_thinking false is accepted by the template but OpenBMB doesn't support it for the 2B
  7. Validate JSON yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
  8. Use the main repository's template; the GGUF, MLX and GPTQ copies predate the 29 September fix

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, MiniCPM5-2B or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against MiniCPM5-2B's 60.2 (C), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. MiniCPM5-2B leads on documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with MiniCPM5-2B 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.