Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Muse Glimmer 30B vs Recursive Flint
Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Recursive Flint's 61 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Recursive Flint 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 3023 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
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 75
- Risk, 80 against 60
Also in its favour
- Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better
Watch for
One tool call per turn and no parallel calls
Best for Agents doing repository work on a 32 to 48 GB Mac or NVIDIA box that want a fast sparse coder with documented tool calls and a plain licence.
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 90 against 75
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Muse Glimmer 30B | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 75 | Muse Glimmer 30B +15 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 80 | 60 | Muse Glimmer 30B +20 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 90 | Recursive Flint +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 65 | 67 | Recursive Flint +2 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | BB 70/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Muse Glimmer 30B | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Meta | Recursive |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-20 | 2026-10-21 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no 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 reviews | 3.8/5 (4) | 3.5/5 (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.
Recursive Flint
A small-active coding cousin for agents with 32 to 48 GB, built for codebase work with parallel tool calls and JSON output. It needs llama.cpp b11803 or Ollama 0.40.8 or later, and the BF16 checkpoint needs a 141 GB GPU. Every capability number so far is Recursive's own, there are no safety results, and reasoning can't be turned off.
Before you call either
Muse Glimmer 30B
- 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, orollama run muse-glimmeron Ollama 0.32.7 or later - In vLLM pass
--tool-call-parser muse_glimmer --reasoning-parser muse_glimmer, in SGLangmusefor both, in ExecuTorch--tool-parser atem. Without them tool calls come back as plain text - Set reasoning per request with
chat_template_kwargs.reasoning_strength(low, medium, high or xhigh). llama.cpp and ExecuTorch don't readreasoning_effort, and ExecuTorch rejects it with a 400 - Expect one tool call per turn and return each result before the next. ExecuTorch's server rejects
tool_choice="required" - Keep temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 64, don't run greedy, and never stop on
<|eom|> - Leave max_tokens room for reasoning, since in llama.cpp a request cut off mid-thought returns empty content with finish_reason length
- For images add Meta's 1.4 GB mmproj GGUF, which takes the build to about 22 GB with the runtime's fifth
Recursive Flint
- Quickest start is
ollama run flint(Ollama 0.40.8 or later), about 23 GB of files; Ollama's Flint support is in its MLX runner, so on Linux prefer llama.cpp - With llama.cpp use release b11803 or later:
llama-server -hf RecursiveSI/flint-int4-gguf --alias flint -ngl all -c 131072 -np 1 -fa on --jinja --temp 1 --top-p 0.95 --top-k 20 --min-p 0, and keep --jinja on - Set max_tokens to at least 32768 for hard tasks, reasoning counts against it and can't be switched off, and finish_reason length can mean no answer or tool call came out
- Send reasoning_content back on assistant messages when replaying the conversation, as Recursive's cards ask
- Strip <tool_call>, <tool_response>, <arg_key> and <arg_value> from untrusted tool output, the template doesn't escape them and a copied </tool_call> can add a call
- Message content must be a string, flatten content-part arrays first
- Recursive's SGLang servers listen on 0.0.0.0 with no key, publish the port on localhost only or pass --api-key
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Muse Glimmer 30B or Recursive Flint?
Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Recursive Flint's 61 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Recursive Flint leads on agent interface.
Other comparisons with Muse Glimmer 30B or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-20b vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy3 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Hy3 vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling-Small vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Inkling-Small vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Inkling vs Recursive Flint
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Kimi K3 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna M.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Laguna M.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Recursive Flint
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs occamy-1.0
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Recursive Flint
- occamy-1.0 vs Recursive Flint
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Recursive Flint
- Recursive Flint vs SmolLM3-3B
- Recursive Flint vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Recursive Flint vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/muse-glimmer-30b-vs-recursive-flint.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/muse-glimmer-30b.json·/api/v1/tools/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare muse-glimmer-30b recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "muse-glimmer-30b", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key