Roboflow

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.

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

Score by taskGLM 5.3 FlashMuse Ember
Object Detection
33.1
63.8
Reasoning
51.0
78.2
Counting
55.4
79.7
OCR
55.4
69.5
Identification
84.4
91.7

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Ember Comparison Table

Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 11, 2026

PropertyGLM 5.3 FlashMuse Ember
OrganizationZ.aiMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Nov 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters320B total, 18B activeUnknown
LicenseMITProprietary
Commercial usefree for commercial usecommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.040$0.100
Output $/1M$0.078$0.500
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoSupported
ClassificationDemoSupported
Object DetectionDemoSupported
OCRDemoSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoSupported
Both support 5 more tasks
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 / sample9.29s6.08s
By task
Object Detection (low)
33.1%
$0.0002
63.8%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.3 to 64.3
$0.0011
Object Detection (high)–
64.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5
$0.0017
Counting (low)
55.4%
$0.0001
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.0006
Counting (high)–
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0011
Identification (low)
84.4%
$0.0001
91.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0004
Identification (high)–
90.6%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0007
OCR (low)
55.4%
$0.0002
69.5%
$0.0010
by category
Single value
47.4%
Transcription
81.5%
Structured JSON
72.0%
Text localization
18.6%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
85.1%
Text localization
35.3%
OCR (high)
55.3%
$0.0002
70.5%
$0.0017
by category
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
72.2%
Structured JSON
72.0%
Text localization
14.5%
Single value
63.0%
Transcription
90.2%
Structured JSON
87.2%
Text localization
35.9%
Reasoning (low)
51.0%
$0.0001
78.2%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5
$0.0006
Reasoning (high)
59.6%
$0.0001
81.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4
$0.0013

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Ember: Overview

GLM 5.3 Flash

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

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.