Roboflow

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Compare Claude Opus 4.8 and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Classification, OCR, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Glimmer 30B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.8
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals

Muse Glimmer 30B scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Muse Glimmer 30B leads 66.2% to 52.7%.

Overall, Claude Opus 4.8 averages 66.8% (#19 of 30) against 70.8% (#15 of 30) for Muse Glimmer 30B.

Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.016 per sample), while Claude Opus 4.8 is faster (5.2s vs 8.7s per sample).

Claude Opus 4.8Muse Glimmer 30B

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table

Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 4.8Muse Glimmer 30B
OrganizationAnthropicMeta
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMay 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M131K
Parameters29.6B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$0.350
Output $/1M$25.00$1.50
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
66.8%
70.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.016$0.0013
Avg speed / sample5.20s8.70s
By task
Object Detection
38.6%
$0.026
41.0%
$0.0020
Counting
52.7%
$0.0076
66.2%
$0.0008
Identification
75.0%
$0.0067
81.3%
$0.0006
OCR
93.8%
$0.020
92.1%
$0.0012
Data Extraction
87.6%
$0.0076
86.6%
$0.0007
Reasoning (low)
53.0%
$0.0078
57.6%
$0.0010
Reasoning (high)
52.3%
$0.0078
62.9%
$0.0033

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview

Claude Opus 4.8

Claude Opus 4.8 is Anthropic's most capable generally available large language model, released on May 28, 2026 as an incremental upgrade to Claude Opus 4.7. The model accepts text and image inputs and produces text outputs, with a 1 million token context window on the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, and Google Cloud Vertex AI (200k tokens on Microsoft Foundry) and up to 128k max output tokens. It uses adaptive thinking and supports adjustable effort tiers — high by default, with extra and max tiers available for more demanding tasks. A fast mode operates at approximately 2.5x standard speed. The model is described by Anthropic as a hybrid reasoning model designed for advanced coding, agentic workflows, long-context reasoning, and professional knowledge work.

Key behavioral improvements over Opus 4.7 include substantially reduced rates of unreported code flaws, improved honesty in self-assessment, and better tool-calling reliability. On Anthropic's Super-Agent benchmark, Opus 4.8 completes every case end-to-end, and it scores 84% on Online-Mind2Web for computer-use and browser-agent tasks. It achieves 88.6% on SWE-bench Verified and 69.2% on SWE-bench Pro. Alongside the model, Anthropic launched Dynamic Workflows in Claude Code (research preview), which enables Claude to orchestrate hundreds of parallel subagents for codebase-scale tasks such as large migrations. The Messages API was also updated to accept mid-task system messages without breaking prompt caching, improving support for long-running agentic pipelines.

Muse Glimmer 30B

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, Muse Glimmer 30B performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 70.8% (#15 of 30) against 66.8% (#19 of 30) for Claude Opus 4.8. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark, Muse Glimmer 30B leads with 66.2% against 52.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0013 per sample against $0.016. Claude Opus 4.8 is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $25.00 per 1M output; Muse Glimmer 30B is priced at $0.35 per 1M input tokens and $1.50 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Opus 4.8 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.2s per inference against 8.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.