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 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5.5 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Meta |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 131K |
| Parameters | 29.6B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | |
| Output $/1M | $1.20 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| 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 / sample | 12.76s | 8.70s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.4% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.9 to 74.8 | 41.0% |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.8% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.4 to 77.8 | – |
| Counting (low) | 80.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 66.2% |
| Counting (high) | 82.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8 | – |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 81.3% |
| Identification (high) | 95.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | – |
| OCR (low) | 87.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 88.2 | 92.1% |
| OCR (high) | 87.2% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 87.8 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 86.6% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 83.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1 | 57.6% |
| Reasoning (high) | 85.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1 | 62.9% |
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview
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 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.