Roboflow

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads 57.5% to 41.0%.

Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.6% (#16 of 30) against 70.8% (#15 of 30) for Muse Glimmer 30B.

Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.0014 per sample), while Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster (2.7s vs 8.7s per sample).

Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteMuse Glimmer 30B

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table

Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteMuse Glimmer 30B
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M131K
Parameters29.6B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$0.350
Output $/1M$2.50$1.50
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Video Classification
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
69.6%
70.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0014$0.0013
Avg speed / sample2.70s8.70s
By task
Object Detection
57.5%
$0.0023
41.0%
$0.0020
Counting
52.7%
$0.0007
66.2%
$0.0008
Identification
81.3%
$0.0004
81.3%
$0.0006
OCR
87.4%
$0.0011
92.1%
$0.0012
Data Extraction
90.7%
$0.0004
86.6%
$0.0007
Reasoning (low)
48.3%
$0.0012
57.6%
$0.0010
Reasoning (high)
68.9%
$0.0042
62.9%
$0.0033

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model developed by Google DeepMind, released on July 21, 2026 as part of the Gemini 3.5 model family. It is the fastest model in the 3.5 series, designed for both low-latency tasks and high-throughput production workloads such as agentic search, document processing, receipt translation, and large-scale data extraction. The model accepts text, images, audio, and video as inputs, with a context window of up to 1 million tokens, and produces text output. It supports configurable thinking levels, allowing developers to tune the balance between response quality, cost, and latency depending on workload requirements.

On agentic and coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms its predecessor, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, including on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (54% vs. 31%), GDM-MRCR v2 long-context (72.2% vs. 60.1%), and real-world task execution as measured by GDPval-AA v2 (1140 vs. 642). It also surpasses Gemini 3 Flash on SWE-Bench Pro (54.2% vs. 49.6%) and OSWorld-Verified (74.0% vs. 65.1%). According to the Artificial Analysis Index, the model generates output at approximately 350 tokens per second. It is built on the Gemini 3.5 Flash foundation and is evaluated across reasoning, coding, multimodal understanding, multilingual performance, and long-context tasks. The model is developed under Google's Frontier Safety Framework.

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 six vision tasks and averages 70.8% (#15 of 30) against 69.6% (#16 of 30) for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. 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, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads with 57.5% 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 $0.0013 per sample against $0.0014. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 2.7s 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.