Roboflow

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, OCR, and Object Detection.

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.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 70.5% to 41.0%.

Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 80.1% (#6 of 63) against 61.4% (#34 of 63) for Muse Glimmer 30B.

Muse Glimmer 30B is both cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.0033 per sample) and faster (10.6s vs 11.0s per sample).

Gemini 3.7 FlashMuse Glimmer 30B

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.7 FlashMuse Glimmer 30B
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M131K
ParametersUndisclosed29.6B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750$0.300
Output $/1M$3.75$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
80.1%
61.4%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.0013
Avg speed / sample11.04s10.60s
By task
Object Detection (low)
70.5%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5
$0.0047
41.0%
$0.0017
Object Detection (high)
74.3%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0
$0.0089
–
Counting (low)
78.4%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7
$0.0025
66.2%
$0.0007
Counting (high)
79.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1
$0.0056
–
Identification (low)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
81.3%
$0.0005
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0021
–
OCR (low)
73.9%
$0.0032
60.7%
$0.0013
by category
Single value
74.8%
Transcription
91.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
29.4%
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
82.9%
Structured JSON
80.2%
Text localization
14.8%
OCR (high)
78.8%
$0.010
60.1%
$0.0033
by category
Single value
71.7%
Transcription
91.9%
Structured JSON
90.6%
Text localization
59.2%
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
78.4%
Structured JSON
80.0%
Text localization
13.7%
Reasoning (low)
80.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8
$0.0022
57.6%
$0.0009
Reasoning (high)
81.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8
$0.0050
62.9%
$0.0026

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview

Gemini 3.7 Flash

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

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.