Roboflow

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Muse Glimmer 30B

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

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

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals

Muse Glimmer 30B scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Glimmer 30B leads 57.6% to 42.4%.

Overall, Gemini 2.5 Pro averages 57.6% (#38 of 61) against 61.4% (#32 of 61) for Muse Glimmer 30B.

Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.0051 per sample), while Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster (6.8s vs 10.6s per sample).

Gemini 2.5 ProMuse Glimmer 30B

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 9, 2026

PropertyGemini 2.5 ProMuse Glimmer 30B
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2025Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M131K
ParametersUnknown29.6B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.300
Output $/1M$10.00$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
Overall
57.6%
61.4%
Avg cost / sample$0.0051$0.0013
Avg speed / sample6.83s10.60s
By task
Object Detection
33.7%
$0.010
41.0%
$0.0017
Counting
52.7%
$0.0012
66.2%
$0.0007
Identification
93.8%
$0.0012
81.3%
$0.0005
OCR (low)
65.2%
$0.0046
60.7%
$0.0013
by category
Single value
60.9%
Transcription
86.8%
Structured JSON
76.3%
Text localization
35.9%
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
82.9%
Structured JSON
80.2%
Text localization
14.8%
OCR (high)
64.6%
$0.025
60.1%
$0.0033
by category
Single value
63.0%
Transcription
87.3%
Structured JSON
78.3%
Text localization
20.6%
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
78.4%
Structured JSON
80.0%
Text localization
13.7%
Reasoning (low)
42.4%
$0.0013
57.6%
$0.0009
Reasoning (high)
62.3%
$0.011
62.9%
$0.0026

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.

Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.

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, Muse Glimmer 30B performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 61.4% (#32 of 61) against 57.6% (#38 of 61) for Gemini 2.5 Pro. 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 42.4%. 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 $0.0051. Gemini 2.5 Pro is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Muse Glimmer 30B is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $1.20 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.8s per inference against 10.6s. 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.