Claude Sonnet 5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, and Image Captioning.
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals
Muse Glimmer 30B scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Glimmer 30B leads 57.6% to 43.0%.
Overall, Claude Sonnet 5 averages 66.4% (#21 of 30) against 70.8% (#15 of 30) for Muse Glimmer 30B.
Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.0064 per sample), while Claude Sonnet 5 is faster (4.8s vs 8.7s per sample).
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5 | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Meta |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 131K |
| Parameters | 29.6B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.350 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $1.50 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 66.4% | 70.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0064 | $0.0013 |
| Avg speed / sample | 4.84s | 8.70s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 36.1% $0.011 | 41.0% $0.0020 |
| Counting | 56.8% $0.0030 | 66.2% $0.0008 |
| Identification | 81.3% $0.0027 | 81.3% $0.0006 |
| OCR | 91.7% $0.0078 | 92.1% $0.0012 |
| Data Extraction | 89.7% $0.0030 | 86.6% $0.0007 |
| Reasoning (low) | 43.0% $0.0032 | 57.6% $0.0010 |
| Reasoning (high) | 43.0% $0.0043 | 62.9% $0.0033 |
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview
Claude Sonnet 5 is a mid-tier large language model from Anthropic, released on June 30, 2026, as the latest model in the Sonnet series and a direct successor to Claude Sonnet 4.6. It is a hybrid reasoning model designed primarily for agentic workflows, software coding, and professional tasks. The model features a 1 million token context window, a 128k maximum output token limit, and runs adaptive thinking by default, giving API users fine-grained control over reasoning effort across five levels (low, medium, high, max, and extra-high). It uses an updated tokenizer shared with Opus 4.7 and later models, which produces approximately 30% more tokens for equivalent text compared to earlier Claude models. On benchmarks, Sonnet 5 scores 63.2% on agentic coding and 81.2% on OSWorld, narrowing the gap with Opus 4.8 while remaining at Sonnet-tier pricing.
The model supports text and image input with text output, and accepts tools including browsers and terminals for autonomous multi-step task execution. Anthropic's safety evaluations report that Sonnet 5 shows a lower rate of undesirable behaviors than Sonnet 4.6 and is generally safer in agentic contexts, with improved resistance to prompt injection and reduced sycophancy. Cybersecurity safeguards equivalent to those on Opus 4.7 and 4.8 are active, though Anthropic notes the model was not deliberately trained on cybersecurity tasks. The model is proprietary and API-only, with no open weights.
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 66.4% (#21 of 30) for Claude Sonnet 5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Glimmer 30B leads with 57.6% against 43.0%. 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 $0.0013 per sample against $0.0064. Claude Sonnet 5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 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 Sonnet 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.8s 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 object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.