GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Ember
Muse Ember and GLM 5.3 Flash score 76.6% vs 55.8% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#17 and #49 of 68 models), so Muse Ember leads overall.
- Muse Ember wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (63.8% vs 33.1%).
- GLM 5.3 Flash is about 1/7 of the cost: $0.0001 vs $0.0009 overall average cost per sample.
- Muse Ember is faster: 6.1s vs 9.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Ember live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Ember on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Ember Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 11, 2026
| Property | GLM 5.3 Flash | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | Meta |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Nov 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 320B total, 18B active | Unknown |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | free for commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.040 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | $0.078 | $0.500 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Supported |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 55.8% | 76.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0001 | $0.0009 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.29s | 6.08s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 33.1% | 63.8% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.3 to 64.3 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 64.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5 |
| Counting (low) | 55.4% | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Counting (high) | – | 79.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | 84.4% | 91.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | – | 90.6% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | 55.4% | 69.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 55.3% | 70.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 51.0% | 78.2% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 59.6% | 81.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4 |
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Ember: Overview
GLM-5.3-Flash is the first natively multimodal model in Z.ai's GLM-5 series, a mixture-of-experts transformer with roughly 320 billion total parameters and 18 billion activated per token. It routes each token through 8 of 288 experts across 45 language layers that interleave KDA linear attention with sparse multi-head latent attention, and pairs them with a 24-layer vision encoder that handles image and video input. The checkpoint declares a maximum context length of 1,048,576 tokens, ships in native FP8, and includes a multi-token prediction draft layer for speculative decoding. Z.ai reports that the hybrid attention design reduces attention computation by 3.01x and KV cache size by 4.44x relative to GLM-5.3.
The model starts from a newly trained base built on a 30 trillion token multimodal pre-training corpus and adopts Manifold-Constrained Hyper-Connections to improve scaling efficiency. Vision is integrated into the coding and agent loop, so the model can inspect interfaces, rendered output, and images while operating across code, browsers, and graphical user interfaces.
Muse Ember is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on November 9, 2026. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents and returns text. The Meta Model API serves it as muse-ember-1.0, with a 1,048,576-token context window and up to 524,288 output tokens. Reasoning effort is adjustable from minimal to max.
Meta positions Ember for repeated tasks within larger agent workflows: tool calls, routing, coding subtasks, and processing collections of images and documents. It can caption or sort photos and extract fields from records while a larger Muse model handles planning. Meta recommends Spark or Wonder for harder single-shot coding and knowledge-heavy problems. Ember is available as a hosted model; its weights are not publicly released.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Ember performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 76.6% (#17 of 68) against 55.8% (#49 of 68) for GLM 5.3 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Muse Ember leads with 63.8% against 33.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.0009. GLM 5.3 Flash is priced at $0.04 per 1M input tokens and $0.08 per 1M output; Muse Ember is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Muse Ember is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.1s per inference against 9.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.