Muse Glimmer 30B is $0.05 cheaper per 1M input tokens (12.5% lower; 1.14x difference).
API cost decision in 10 seconds
NewQwen3.8 27B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Pick Muse Glimmer 30B for lower cost; pick Qwen3.8 27B only if the larger context window matters more.
Page updated:
Data confirmed:
Prices normalized to USD per 1M tokens
Sample workload: 1M input + 500K output
Budget verdict
Pick Muse Glimmer 30B for lower cost; pick Qwen3.8 27B only if the larger context window matters more.
On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Muse Glimmer 30B is estimated at $1.1 vs $1.9 for Qwen3.8 27B, saving $0.8 (42.1% lower).
Cost-first pickMuse Glimmer 30B
Context-first pickQwen3.8 27B
Sample savings$0.842.1%
10x traffic gap$8
Qwen3.8 27B has more context, but Muse Glimmer 30B saves $0.8 on the standard workload. At 10x that traffic, the same price gap is about $8. Use the calculator below to replace the sample workload with your own token volume.
Cost sensitivity
Workload Sensitivity
Muse Glimmer 30B stays cheaper across input-heavy, balanced, and output-heavy sample workloads.
| Workload shape | Token mix | Better pick | Qwen3.8 27B | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input-heavy / RAG | 5M input + 500K output | Muse Glimmer 30B | $3.5 | $2.5 |
| Balanced workload | 1M input + 1M output | Muse Glimmer 30B | $3.4 | $1.85 |
| Output-heavy chatbot | 1M input + 5M output | Muse Glimmer 30B | $15.4 | $7.85 |
Muse Glimmer 30B is $1.5 cheaper per 1M output tokens (50% lower; 2x difference).
Qwen3.8 27B has 868.93K more context (7.63x larger).
Muse Glimmer 30B is $0.8 cheaper on the standard workload (42.1% lower).
Estimate your workload cost
Your Workload Cost
This estimate uses normalized public API pricing per 1M tokens. It is a planning aid, not a billing quote. Verify provider pricing, limits, and terms before production use.
Quick Decision
Muse Glimmer 30B has the lower input price; Muse Glimmer 30B has the lower output price; Qwen3.8 27B offers the larger context window. For the 1M input plus 500K output sample, Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper for the standard workload.
For a 1M input token plus 500K output token workload, the estimated API cost is $1.9 for Qwen3.8 27B and $1.1 for Muse Glimmer 30B.
Choose Qwen3.8 27B when you care most about larger context window.
Choose Muse Glimmer 30B when you care most about lower input-token price, and lower output-token price.
- On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Muse Glimmer 30B is estimated at $1.1 vs $1.9 for Qwen3.8 27B, saving $0.8 (42.1% lower).
- Muse Glimmer 30B is $0.8 cheaper on the standard workload (42.1% lower).
- Muse Glimmer 30B is $0.05 cheaper per 1M input tokens (12.5% lower; 1.14x difference).
- Muse Glimmer 30B is $1.5 cheaper per 1M output tokens (50% lower; 2x difference).
- Qwen3.8 27B has 868.93K more context (7.63x larger).
| Feature | NewQwen3.8 27B (Qwen) | Muse Glimmer 30B (Meta) |
|---|---|---|
| Input Price prompt tokens per 1M | $0.4 | $0.35 |
| Completion Price per 1M tokens | $3 | $1.5 |
| Sample Workload Cost 1M input + 500K output | $1.9 | $1.1 |
| Context Window | 1M | 131.07K |
| Release Date |
Use-Case Decision Matrix
| Use case | Better pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Budget-constrained production | Muse Glimmer 30B | On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Muse Glimmer 30B is estimated at $1.1 vs $1.9 for Qwen3.8 27B, saving $0.8 (42.1% lower). |
| High-volume input processing | Muse Glimmer 30B | Lower prompt-token price matters most when prompts, retrieved passages, or documents dominate the bill. |
| Long responses and chatbots | Muse Glimmer 30B | Lower output-token price matters most when assistants generate many completion tokens. |
| RAG or long-document work | Qwen3.8 27B | A larger context window leaves more room for retrieved passages, conversation history, or source files. |
Related Alternatives
- Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct (free) can replace Qwen3.8 27B when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (free) can replace Qwen3.8 27B when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Qwen3.7 Flash can replace Qwen3.8 27B when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.1.
- Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 can replace Qwen3.8 27B when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.14.
- DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 offers 1.31M context with $0.17 sample workload cost.
- DeepSeek V4 Flash Latest offers 1.31M context with $0.11 sample workload cost.
- Llama 4 Scout offers 1.31M context with $0.25 sample workload cost.
- MiMo-V2.5 offers 1.05M context with $0.28 sample workload cost.
- DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 · DeepSeek · #1
- MiMo-V2.5 · Xiaomi · #2
- Hy3 · Tencent · #3
- Ox Alpha · stealth · #4
Cheaper alternatives
Review low-cost models sorted by a standard 1M input plus 500K output workload.
Open cheapest modelsLarger context alternatives
Find models with larger context windows for RAG, long documents, and codebase review.
Open largest context modelsProvider catalogs
Compare models within provider hubs before choosing a final API vendor.
Open provider hubsQwen catalog
Review all tracked Qwen models before deciding whether this matchup is the right shortlist.
Open Qwen modelsMeta catalog
Check other Meta models with comparable pricing, context, or release timing.
Open Meta modelsQwen3.8 27B is an open-weight dense vision-language model from Qwen. It is suited for coding, professional workflows, research, multimodal interaction, and long-running agent tasks, with flexible thinking that can be...
Muse Glimmer 30B is a dense, open-weight multimodal model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, distilled from Muse Spark and optimized for autonomous agents on consumer hardware. It is suited for long-horizon...