Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Classification, Image Captioning, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.6 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 80.1% to 57.6%.
Overall, Gemini 3.6 Flash averages 83.1% (#5 of 30) against 70.8% (#15 of 30) for Muse Glimmer 30B.
Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.0032 per sample), while Gemini 3.6 Flash is faster (4.7s vs 8.7s per sample).
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 131K |
| Parameters | 29.6B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.750 | $0.350 |
| Output $/1M | $3.75 | $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 |
| 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 | 83.1% | 70.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0032 | $0.0013 |
| Avg speed / sample | 4.73s | 8.70s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 56.0% $0.0041 | 41.0% $0.0020 |
| Counting | 82.4% $0.0032 | 66.2% $0.0008 |
| Identification | 96.9% $0.0015 | 81.3% $0.0006 |
| OCR | 88.4% $0.0025 | 92.1% $0.0012 |
| Data Extraction | 94.8% $0.0015 | 86.6% $0.0007 |
| Reasoning (low) | 80.1% $0.0031 | 57.6% $0.0010 |
| Reasoning (high) | 80.1% $0.0085 | 62.9% $0.0033 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a multimodal language model from Google DeepMind, positioned as the workhorse tier in the Gemini 3.x family. It accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs with a 1 million token context window and produces up to 64,000 output tokens. The model builds directly on Gemini 3.5 Flash, incorporating developer and customer feedback to improve token efficiency, coding quality, and knowledge work performance. According to the Artificial Analysis Index, it consumes 17% fewer output tokens than its predecessor, and on some benchmarks such as DeepSWE, token reduction reaches up to 65%. It supports function calling, structured output, search as a tool, and code execution, and includes computer use as a built-in capability in the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise.
On coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on DeepSWE versus 37% for 3.5 Flash, and 63.9% on MLE Bench versus 49.7%. Computer use performance on OSWorld-Verified improves from 78.4% to 83%, and knowledge work scores on GDPval-AA v2 rise from 1349 to 1421. The model carries a knowledge cutoff of March 2026 and ships with enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards covering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber offense domains, with training to minimize refusals for beneficial uses. It is a proprietary, closed-weights model available in preview through the Gemini API via Google AI Studio, Android Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise, and the Gemini app.
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, Gemini 3.6 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.1% (#5 of 30) against 70.8% (#15 of 30) for Muse Glimmer 30B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.6 Flash leads with 80.1% against 57.6%. 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 $0.0032. Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 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 3.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.7s 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 open prompts and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.