Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side.
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals
Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Haiku 5.5 leads 65.8% to 41.0%.
Overall, Claude Haiku 5.5 averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 70.8% (#30 of 61) for Muse Glimmer 30B.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper ($0.0005 vs $0.0011 per sample), while Muse Glimmer 30B is faster (8.7s vs 13.2s per sample).
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026
| Property | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Meta |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 131K |
| Parameters | undisclosed | 29.6B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $0.300 |
| Output $/1M | $0.500 | $1.20 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 77.2% | 70.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0005 | $0.0011 |
| Avg speed / sample | 13.23s | 8.70s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 65.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.1 to 66.2 | 41.0% |
| Object Detection (high) | 68.2% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.2 to 69.2 | – |
| Counting (low) | 68.9% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 74.3 | 66.2% |
| Counting (high) | 73.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 74.3 | – |
| Identification (low) | 83.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 | 81.3% |
| Identification (high) | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 | – |
| OCR (low) | 90.1% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.8 to 91.0 | 92.1% |
| OCR (high) | 88.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 89.6 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 85.9% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 87.6 | 86.6% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 87.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.6 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 68.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.9 to 70.9 | 57.6% |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 77.5 | 62.9% |
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview
Claude Haiku 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the smallest member of the Claude 5.5 family, released on October 7, 2026 after Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 1M token context window and up to 128K output tokens per request. It is the first Haiku-class model with an adjustable effort parameter: adaptive thinking is on by default and the model decides how much to reason, steered by effort levels from low to max with medium as the default. Its training data cutoff is June 2026. Pricing starts at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens for prompts up to 100K tokens, which Anthropic reports is about 90% lower than Claude Haiku 4.5 for requests in that range.
Anthropic positions Haiku 5.5 for high-volume, latency-sensitive work such as classification, extraction, routing, summarization, and subagent tasks, and describes it as its fastest model to date at standard speed. On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, it scores 46.4% on Chartography, a chart reading benchmark, compared with 6.4% for Haiku 4.5 and 61.6% for Sonnet 5.5, and 72.4% on the offline subset of OSWorld 2.1, a screenshot driven computer use benchmark, compared with 15.7% for Haiku 4.5. It uses the same tokenizer as Claude Opus 4.7 and later models, so the same text counts as roughly 30% more tokens than on Haiku 4.5.
Muse Glimmer 30B is a dense vision language model from Meta built for long-horizon agentic work on local hardware. The architecture pairs a 52-layer causal text decoder with a roughly 1.8B parameter ViT-G/14 perception encoder for about 29.6 billion parameters in total, and it accepts interleaved text and image input so an agent can interpret screenshots, charts, and documents alongside conversation. The decoder uses grouped-query attention with 32 query heads and 2 key-value heads, a repeating pattern of three sliding-window local attention layers followed by one global layer, SwiGLU feed-forward blocks, and rotary position embeddings applied on the local layers, supporting a trained context of 131,072 tokens.
Meta describes the model as distilled from the larger Muse Spark and trained and evaluated around agentic behavior: end-to-end task completion, schema-accurate tool calling, multi-step reasoning across extended workflows, and recovery when a tool call returns an unexpected result. Reasoning effort is selectable across low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, and the model emits channel-scoped reasoning traces together with XML style tool calls rather than JSON, which requires parsers specific to this family. A companion block-diffusion drafter head predicts blocks of 16 tokens per forward pass for speculative decoding, with the main model verifying the proposals in parallel.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Haiku 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 70.8% (#30 of 61) for Muse Glimmer 30B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Claude Haiku 5.5 leads with 65.8% against 41.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0005 per sample against $0.0011. Claude Haiku 5.5 is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output; Muse Glimmer 30B is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $1.20 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Muse Glimmer 30B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.7s per inference against 13.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.