Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side.
Compare Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals
Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 74.3% to 41.0%.
Overall, Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 70.8% (#28 of 60) for Muse Glimmer 30B.
Muse Glimmer 30B is both cheaper ($0.0011 vs $0.0065 per sample) and faster (8.7s vs 10.8s per sample).
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table
Evals updated September 28, 2026Pricing updated September 28, 2026
| Property | Claude Sonnet 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 | 83.8% | 70.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0065 | $0.0011 |
| Avg speed / sample | 10.78s | 8.70s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.3% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3 | 41.0% |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.8% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3 | – |
| Counting (low) | 79.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7 | 66.2% |
| Counting (high) | 82.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8 | – |
| Identification (low) | 91.7% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 | 81.3% |
| Identification (high) | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 | – |
| OCR (low) | 90.6% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.0 to 91.7 | 92.1% |
| OCR (high) | 90.9% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 92.3 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 90.7% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.7 to 92.8 | 86.6% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 93.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 76.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8 | 57.6% |
| Reasoning (high) | 83.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4 | 62.9% |
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the second release in the Claude 5.5 family, following Claude Opus 5.5. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, operating with a 1M token context window and a maximum output of 128K tokens per request. The model uses adaptive thinking by default, allocating variable reasoning effort per request rather than exposing a manual extended thinking toggle, and its training data cutoff is June 2026. Anthropic positions it as a faster, lower cost complement to Opus 5.5 for well scoped everyday tasks, bug fixing, and producing documents, slides, and spreadsheets.
On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, Sonnet 5.5 scores 61.6% on Chartography, a chart recognition test, compared with 15.6% for Claude Sonnet 5, and 80.1% on OSWorld 2.1, a computer use benchmark measuring screenshot driven control of a desktop environment, compared with 57.0% for Sonnet 5. It reports 70.6% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 for agentic coding. Anthropic describes it as the first Sonnet model able to complete Pokemon Red from screenshots alone, and it generates output more than 30% faster than Sonnet 5 while using fewer tokens for equivalent work.
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 Sonnet 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 70.8% (#28 of 60) 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 Sonnet 5.5 leads with 74.3% 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 $0.0065. 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 10.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.