Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Muse Glimmer 30B score 61.7% vs 61.4% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#38 and #39 of 68 models), so they are effectively tied.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins 3 of the 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (57.5% vs 41.0%).
- Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper: $0.0013 vs $0.0014 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster: 3.9s vs 10.6s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 11, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 131K |
| Parameters | Unknown | 29.6B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $0.300 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $1.20 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Video Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 61.7% | 61.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0014 | $0.0013 |
| Avg speed / sample | 3.92s | 10.60s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 57.5% | 41.0% |
| Counting | 52.7% | 66.2% |
| Identification | 84.4% | 81.3% |
| OCR (low) | 65.8% | 60.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 71.2% | 60.1% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 48.3% | 57.6% |
| Reasoning (high) | 68.9% | 62.9% |
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview
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.
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). 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 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.