Roboflow

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, Image Captioning, and Object Detection.

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash 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
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 16, 2026

PropertyGemini 2.5 FlashMuse Glimmer 30B
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2025Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M131K
ParametersUnknown29.6B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$0.300
Output $/1M$2.50$1.20
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
OverallNot evaluated
61.4%
Avg cost / sample–$0.0013
Avg speed / sample–10.60s
By task
Object Detection–
41.0%
$0.0017
Counting–
66.2%
$0.0007
Identification–
81.3%
$0.0005
OCR (low)–
60.7%
$0.0013
by category
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
82.9%
Structured JSON
80.2%
Text localization
14.8%
OCR (high)–
60.1%
$0.0033
by category
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
78.4%
Structured JSON
80.0%
Text localization
13.7%
Reasoning (low)–
57.6%
$0.0009
Reasoning (high)–
62.9%
$0.0026

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Gemini 2.5 Flash, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s production-ready, efficiency-focused model in the Gemini 2.5 family. It is multimodal, accepting text, images, video, and audio as inputs, with text as the primary output format. The model supports 1 million input tokens and up to 65K output tokens, enabling it to process very large contexts such as books, long video transcripts, or extensive datasets. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.

Designed as a price-performance leader, Gemini 2.5 Flash balances speed and reasoning power, making it suitable for everyday enterprise and developer use cases without the higher latency and cost of Pro models. It supports advanced workflows like function calling, code execution, search grounding, URL context ingestion, and structured outputs. While efficient and scalable, output length is still limited compared to its input capacity, and multimodal outputs (e.g. image or audio generation) remain restricted to specialized or preview variants.

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.