Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Compare image classification labels and confidence scores side-by-side.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 69.4% to 41.0%.
Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 70.8% (#15 of 30) for Muse Glimmer 30B.
Muse Glimmer 30B is both cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.0016 per sample) and faster (8.7s vs 10.0s per sample).
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 131K |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | 29.6B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.375 | $0.350 |
| Output $/1M | $1.88 | $1.50 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 84.6% | 70.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0016 | $0.0013 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.97s | 8.70s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 69.4% $0.0024 | 41.0% $0.0020 |
| Counting | 77.0% $0.0013 | 66.2% $0.0008 |
| Identification | 96.9% $0.0007 | 81.3% $0.0006 |
| OCR | 86.9% $0.0014 | 92.1% $0.0012 |
| Data Extraction | 94.8% $0.0007 | 86.6% $0.0007 |
| Reasoning (low) | 82.8% $0.0011 | 57.6% $0.0010 |
| Reasoning (high) | 82.1% $0.0026 | 62.9% $0.0033 |
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary multimodal model from Google, positioned in the Flash branch of the Gemini 3 series that trades some of the capacity of the larger Pro models for lower latency and lower cost per token. It accepts interleaved text and image input alongside other modalities handled by the Gemini family and returns text, and it continues the series pattern of exposing a configurable thinking budget so that reasoning effort can be scaled up for harder problems or reduced for high throughput extraction, routing and classification work. The model is announced roughly three weeks after Gemini 3.6 Flash, part of an unusually fast iteration cadence within the Flash line.
Google reports gains concentrated in agentic coding and front end generation, citing a WebDev Arena Elo of 1588 for this release compared with 1538 for the preceding Flash model, and describes it as producing more functional layouts and more feature complete applications in fewer prompts. Weights are not published and the architecture, parameter count and training corpus are undisclosed, consistent with prior Gemini releases. Visual capability follows the Flash lineage, covering image and document understanding, chart and diagram interpretation, text recognition in images, and general visual question answering.
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 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 84.6% (#2 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 Object Detection benchmark, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 69.4% 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 $0.0016. Gemini 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.38 per 1M input tokens and $1.88 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.
Muse Glimmer 30B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.7s per inference against 10.0s. 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.