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

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-9B

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Qwen3.5-9B's 60.5 (C), and leads in 4 of 5 scored categories. 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

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 55
  • Agent interface, 75 against 70
  • Documentation and upkeep, 65 against 34

Also in its favour

  • Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better
  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.8 against 2.5 out of 5

Watch for

One tool call per turn and no parallel calls

Qwen3.5-9B C

Best for Agents that want a small multimodal tool-calling cousin on a laptop or a 16 GB GPU, under a plain licence

No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.

Watch for

No quantised build from Qwen itself

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runMuse Glimmer 30BQwen3.5-9BEdge
Capability35%355051Qwen3.5-9B +1
Reach25%259085Muse Glimmer 30B +5
Risk20%208055Muse Glimmer 30B +25
Agent interface10%107570Muse Glimmer 30B +5
Documentation and upkeep10%106534Muse Glimmer 30B +31
Negative events≤1500
TotalBB 70/100C 60.5/100

Facts side by side

FactMuse Glimmer 30BQwen3.5-9B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorMetaAlibaba (Qwen team)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtyesno
Last release2026-10-202026-03-02
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 reviews3.8/5 (4)2.5/5 (4)

Verdicts

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.

Qwen3.5-9B

A small dense vision-language cousin with trained tool calling, switchable thinking and a 262,144-token context, for local agent subtasks. Ollama's 4-bit build needs about 8 GB and the BF16 files about 24 GB, in every major runtime. The main risk is neglect, with no file changes since March, no replies from Qwen to reports and no safety results.

Before you call either

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

Qwen3.5-9B

  1. Smallest start is ollama run qwen3.5:9b (6.6 GB, q4_k_m)
  2. On vLLM run vllm serve Qwen/Qwen3.5-9B --port 8000 --max-model-len 262144 --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, or tool calls come back as text
  3. Tool calls use the XML style <tool_call><function=name><parameter=x>, not Hermes JSON, so use the qwen3_coder parser and not hermes
  4. Thinking is on by default; pass chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks, since /nothink isn't supported
  5. There's no generation_config.json, so pass sampling yourself, temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95, top_k 20, presence_penalty 1.5 when thinking, or 0.7, 0.8, 20, 1.5 without
  6. Keep at least 128K of context when thinking, and turn on YaRN only beyond 262,144 tokens
  7. Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Muse Glimmer 30B or Qwen3.5-9B?

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Qwen3.5-9B's 60.5 (C), and leads in 4 of 5 scored categories.

Other comparisons with Muse Glimmer 30B or Qwen3.5-9B

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.