Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and Classification.
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B 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
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals
Muse Glimmer 30B scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Counting, where Muse Glimmer 30B leads 66.2% to 43.2%.
Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 63.6% (#48 of 61) against 70.8% (#29 of 61) for Muse Glimmer 30B.
Muse Glimmer 30B is both cheaper ($0.0011 vs $0.0019 per sample) and faster (8.7s vs 27.8s per sample).
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table
Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026
| Property | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 131K |
| Parameters | 25.2B | 29.6B |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.076 | $0.300 |
| Output $/1M | $0.255 | $1.20 |
| 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 |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 63.6% | 70.8% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0019 | $0.0011 |
| Avg speed / sample | 27.84s | 8.70s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 44.2% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8 | 41.0% |
| Counting | 43.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0 | 66.2% |
| Identification | 81.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4 | 81.3% |
| OCR | 88.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2 | 92.1% |
| Data Extraction | 76.6% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3 | 86.6% |
| Reasoning (low) | 47.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0 | 57.6% |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 62.9% |
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview
Gemma 4 26B A4B is the Mixture-of-Experts variant in Google's Gemma 4 family, with 25.2B total parameters but only 3.8B active per token. Built from the same Gemini 3 research as the 31B dense sibling and released as open weights under the Apache 2.0 license, it supports a 256K token context window with text and image input and configurable thinking mode. The "A4B" in the name refers to its approximately 4B active parameters. The MoE design makes it significantly faster at inference than the dense 31B, running nearly as fast as a 4B-parameter model while delivering roughly 97% of the dense model's quality.
For vision tasks, the 26B A4B shares the same multimodal capabilities as the 31B image understanding with variable aspect ratios and resolutions, and structured bounding box output for UI element detection. The tradeoff versus the 31B dense model is a small quality reduction in exchange for much faster inference and lower hardware requirements, fitting in 18GB of VRAM at 4-bit quantization. It ranked #6 among open models on the Arena AI text leaderboard at launch.
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 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 70.8% (#29 of 61) against 63.6% (#48 of 61) for Gemma 4 26B A4B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark at low effort, Muse Glimmer 30B leads with 66.2% against 43.2%. 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 $0.0011 per sample against $0.0019. 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 27.8s. 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 OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.