Roboflow

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side.

Compare Claude Opus 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 Opus 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 74.4% to 41.0%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 85.5% (#3 of 57) against 70.8% (#26 of 57) for Muse Glimmer 30B.

Muse Glimmer 30B is both cheaper ($0.0011 vs $0.014 per sample) and faster (8.7s vs 12.8s per sample).

Claude Opus 5.5Muse Glimmer 30B

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5.5Muse Glimmer 30B
OrganizationAnthropicMeta
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M131K
Parameters29.6B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300
Output $/1M$1.20
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
85.5%
70.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.014$0.0011
Avg speed / sample12.76s8.70s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.9 to 74.8
$0.022
41.0%
$0.0017
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.4 to 77.8
$0.030
Counting (low)
80.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0081
66.2%
$0.0007
Counting (high)
82.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8
$0.0098
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0058
81.3%
$0.0005
Identification (high)
95.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.0067
OCR (low)
87.8%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 88.2
$0.017
92.1%
$0.0010
OCR (high)
87.2%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 87.8
$0.024
Data Extraction (low)
93.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0066
86.6%
$0.0006
Data Extraction (high)
93.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0075
Reasoning (low)
83.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1
$0.0090
57.6%
$0.0009
Reasoning (high)
85.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1
$0.011
62.9%
$0.0026

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.

On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.

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, Claude Opus 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#3 of 57) against 70.8% (#26 of 57) 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 Opus 5.5 leads with 74.4% against 41.0%. 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 $0.0011 per sample against $0.014. 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 12.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.