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

MiniMax-M2.7 vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against MiniMax-M2.7's 56.1 (C), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. MiniMax-M2.7 leads on capability. 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

MiniMax-M2.7 C

Best for Researchers and personal projects with a 4 to 8 GPU server who want an open agent and coding model with parallel tool calls

Ahead on

  • Capability, 71 against 50

Watch for

Commercial use needs MiniMax's written authorisation since a licence swap on 11 April 2026, made without a note

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 60
  • Risk, 80 against 30
  • Documentation and upkeep, 65 against 27

Also in its favour

  • Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better
  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.8 against 1.8 out of 5

Watch for

One tool call per turn and no parallel calls

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runMiniMax-M2.7Muse Glimmer 30BEdge
Capability35%357150MiniMax-M2.7 +21
Reach25%256090Muse Glimmer 30B +30
Risk20%203080Muse Glimmer 30B +50
Agent interface10%107575even
Documentation and upkeep10%102765Muse Glimmer 30B +38
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 56.1/100BB 70/100

Facts side by side

FactMiniMax-M2.7Muse Glimmer 30B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorMiniMaxMeta
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceMiniMax M2.7 non-commercial licence (MIT-style terms, commercial use needs MiniMax's written authorisation)Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnoyes
Last release2026-04-202026-10-20
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 reviews1.8/5 (4)3.8/5 (4)

Verdicts

MiniMax-M2.7

A 230B mixture-of-experts model for coding and agent harnesses, with parallel tool calls, about 200K of context and parsers in vLLM and SGLang. It needs a 4 GPU server for FP8 or about 166 GB for a 4-bit library build, and it always thinks. The main risk is the licence, switched to non-commercial two days after release.

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

MiniMax-M2.7

  1. Check the use is personal, research or non-profit before starting it; anything commercial needs MiniMax's written authorisation, and commercial users must show Built with MiniMax M2.7
  2. Start it with vLLM on 4 GPUs of 96 GB, SAFETENSORS_FAST_GPU=1 vllm serve MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2.7 --trust-remote-code --tensor-parallel-size 4 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser minimax_m2 --reasoning-parser minimax_m2_append_think
  3. In SGLang use --tool-call-parser minimax-m2 and --reasoning-parser minimax-append-think, with --trust-remote-code
  4. MiniMax's guides budget 220 GB for the weights and 240 GB per 1M tokens of KV cache, with 196K the most per sequence
  5. On one large-memory machine, LM Studio's catalogue entry minimax/minimax-m2.7 lists a 138 GB Q4_K_M GGUF and states 138 GB minimum memory
  6. Sample with temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 40, as the card recommends, and budget output tokens for thinking on every turn
  7. Pin Transformers 4.57.1 as MiniMax's guide does; a report that it fails on Transformers v5 has no answer
  8. Without the hardware, call it through Novita, Featherless AI or DeepInfra; MiniMax's own API retires M2.7 on 18 November 2026

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, MiniMax-M2.7 or Muse Glimmer 30B?

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against MiniMax-M2.7's 56.1 (C), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. MiniMax-M2.7 leads on capability.

Other comparisons with MiniMax-M2.7 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.