Muse Glimmer (high) vs. Ling 3.0 Flash
Comparison between Muse Glimmer (high) and Ling 3.0 Flash across intelligence, price, speed, context window and more.
For details relating to our methodology, see our Methodology page.
Highlights
Model Comparison
Muse Glimmer (high) | Ling 3.0 Flash | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Index | 35 | 38 | Ling 3.0 Flash is more intelligent than Muse Glimmer (high) |
| Price per 1M Tokens | $0.23 | $0.05 | Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper than Muse Glimmer (high) |
| Output Speed | 101 tokens/s | 402 tokens/s | Ling 3.0 Flash is faster than Muse Glimmer (high) |
| Time to First Token | 0.88s | 2.02s | Muse Glimmer (high) responds faster than Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Context Window | 256k tokens~384 A4 pages of size 12 Arial font | 262k tokens~393 A4 pages of size 12 Arial font | Ling 3.0 Flash has a larger context window than Muse Glimmer (high) |
| Release Date | August 2026 | August 2026 | Muse Glimmer (high) has a more recent release date than Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Parameters | 30B | 124B, 5.1B active at inference time | Ling 3.0 Flash has more parameters than Muse Glimmer (high) |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Both Muse Glimmer (high) and Ling 3.0 Flash have reasoning |
| Image Input Support | Yes | No | Muse Glimmer (high) has image input support while Ling 3.0 Flash does not |
| Open Source (Weights) | Yes | Both Muse Glimmer (high) and Ling 3.0 Flash are open source |
Intelligence
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index by Open Weights / Proprietary
Intelligence Evaluations
Agentic real-world work tasks, (Elo-500)/2000
Agentic tool use
Agentic coding & terminal use
Coding
Reasoning & knowledge
Scientific reasoning
Physics reasoning
Knowledge
1 - hallucination rate
Long context reasoning
Agentic knowledge work, Elo
Agentic SaaS workflows
Legal agentic work, criterion pass rate
Agentic business operations
Quantitative analysis on spreadsheets & documents
Instruction following
Long-horizon agentic tasks
Kubernetes incident root-cause analysis
Visual reasoning
AA-Briefcase
AA-Briefcase Elo
AA-Omniscience
AA-Omniscience Index
Openness Index
Artificial Analysis Openness Index: Score
Intelligence Index Comparisons
Intelligence Index vs. Cost per Intelligence Index Task
Token Use
Output Tokens per Intelligence Index Task
Cost
Cost per Intelligence Index Task
Cost to Run Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
Pricing: Cache Hit, Input, and Output
Context Window
Context Window
Speed
Measured by Output Speed (tokens per second)
Output Speed
Time per Intelligence Index Task
Latency
Measured by Time (seconds) to First Token
Latency: Time To First Answer Token
End-to-End Response Time
Seconds to output 500 tokens, calculated based on time to first token, 'thinking' time for reasoning models, and output speed
End-to-End Response Time
Model Size (Open Weights Models Only)
Model Size: Total and Active Parameters
Frequently Asked Questions
Ling 3.0 Flash is more intelligent. Ling 3.0 Flash scores 38, compared with Muse Glimmer (high) at 35 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.
Ling 3.0 Flash is faster. Ling 3.0 Flash generates 401.8 tokens per second, compared with Muse Glimmer (high) at 100.8 tokens per second.
Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper. Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.05 per 1M tokens, compared with Muse Glimmer (high) at $0.23 per 1M tokens (7:2:1 cache hit/input/output ratio).
Muse Glimmer (high) has lower latency. Muse Glimmer (high) has a time to first token of 0.88s, compared with Ling 3.0 Flash at 2.02s.
Both models have a context window of 260k tokens.