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

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8-27B

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Qwen3.8-27B's 68.6 (B), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. Qwen3.8-27B 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

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

  • Risk, 80 against 55
  • Agent interface, 75 against 70
  • Documentation and upkeep, 65 against 36

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

Qwen3.8-27B B

Best for Agents that want a capable open model with vision on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac, with the widest runtime support and a plain licence.

Ahead on

  • Capability, 70 against 50

Watch for

No safety results, prompt-injection guidance or security contact

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runMuse Glimmer 30BQwen3.8-27BEdge
Capability35%355070Qwen3.8-27B +20
Reach25%259090even
Risk20%208055Muse Glimmer 30B +25
Agent interface10%107570Muse Glimmer 30B +5
Documentation and upkeep10%106536Muse Glimmer 30B +29
Negative events≤1500
TotalBB 70/100B 68.6/100

Facts side by side

FactMuse Glimmer 30BQwen3.8-27B
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 release2026-10-202026-08-14
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)3/5 (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.

Qwen3.8-27B

A dense cousin for coding and agent work with image and video input that runs almost anywhere. Ollama's 4-bit build needs about 22 GB, and five providers host it for agents without the hardware. The main risk is that nobody at Alibaba answers, there are no safety results or agent guidance, and the tool format is only in the template.

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

Qwen3.8-27B

  1. Quickest start is ollama run qwen3.8, about 18 GB of files
  2. On our reference machine use BF16 with vllm serve Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B --max-model-len 131072 --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, since FP8 on gfx1151 isn't documented
  3. Use the qwen3_coder tool parser, SGLang's cookbook says the Hermes parser leaves its calls unparsed
  4. Thinking is on by default, pass chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks, and read the reasoning from reasoning_content
  5. reasoning_effort takes xhigh (default), medium or low, and any other value makes the template raise an error
  6. Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95 when thinking, temperature 0.7, top_p 0.8 and presence_penalty 1.5 without
  7. Preserved thinking keeps earlier reasoning in the context unless preserve_thinking is false, which grows long agent sessions
  8. Turn on YaRN only beyond 262,144 tokens, the card warns static YaRN can cost quality on short texts
  9. Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Muse Glimmer 30B or Qwen3.8-27B?

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Qwen3.8-27B's 68.6 (B), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. Qwen3.8-27B leads on capability.

Other comparisons with Muse Glimmer 30B or Qwen3.8-27B

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.