Back to SearchHardware Shootout
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash
VS
Meta
Muse Glimmer 30B
Analysis By: The WhichLLMModel Editorial Team|Updated: June 2026
Live Hardware Compatibility Simulator
GPU Dedicated VRAM16 GB
System Host RAM32 GB
DeepSeek V4 FlashOOM / Exceeds Limit
VRAM Footprint (Q4):145.97 GB
Active GPU Load:12.61 GB
Muse Glimmer 30BPartial CPU Offload
VRAM Footprint (Q4):16.21 GB
Active GPU Load:14.44 GB
Hardware & Architecture Shootout Matrix
| Metric / Spec | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Parameter Scale | 284B Parameters | 30B Parameters |
| Attention Architecture | Standard GQA / MHA | Sliding Window Attention |
| Max Context Window | 1.05M | 131.07k |
| Available GGUF Quants | 2 Quant Formats | 2 Quant Formats |
| Full Model Page | Hardware Details | Hardware Details |
Intelligence & Benchmark Head-to-Head
Coding Benchmark (SWE-bench / HumanEval)
DeepSeek V4 Flash49.1%
Muse Glimmer 30B51.2%
Reasoning Benchmark (GPQA / MMLU)
DeepSeek V4 Flash80%
Muse Glimmer 30B83.5%
Frequently Asked Questions about DeepSeek V4 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper than DeepSeek V4 Flash. Muse Glimmer 30B has a blended cost of $NaN/1M tokens, which is about 1.0x cheaper than DeepSeek V4 Flash at $NaN/1M tokens.
Muse Glimmer 30B is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 51.2% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to DeepSeek V4 Flash which scores 49.1%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for DeepSeek V4 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B.