GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Compare GLM 5.3 Flash and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare GLM 5.3 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals
Muse Glimmer 30B scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Counting, where Muse Glimmer 30B leads 66.2% to 55.4%.
Overall, GLM 5.3 Flash averages 66.3% (#22 of 33) against 70.8% (#15 of 33) for Muse Glimmer 30B.
GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0002 vs $0.0013 per sample) and faster (6.8s vs 8.7s per sample).
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026
| Property | GLM 5.3 Flash | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | Meta |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 131K |
| Parameters | 320B total, 18B active | 29.6B |
| License | MIT | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.350 | |
| Output $/1M | $1.50 | |
| 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 | 66.3% | 70.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0002 | $0.0013 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.78s | 8.70s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 33.1% $0.0004 | 41.0% $0.0020 |
| Counting | 55.4% $0.0001 | 66.2% $0.0008 |
| Identification | 84.4% $0.0001 | 81.3% $0.0006 |
| OCR | 90.6% $0.0002 | 92.1% $0.0012 |
| Data Extraction | 83.5% $0.0001 | 86.6% $0.0007 |
| Reasoning (low) | 51.0% $0.0001 | 57.6% $0.0010 |
| Reasoning (high) | 59.6% $0.0001 | 62.9% $0.0033 |
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B: 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. Z.ai reports scores of 84.3 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 63.4 on DeepSWE 1.1, 55.3 on Humanity's Last Exam with tools, and 48.8 on AutomationBench, and the model exposes low, high, and max thinking modes.
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 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 70.8% (#15 of 33) against 66.3% (#22 of 33) 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 Counting benchmark, Muse Glimmer 30B leads with 66.2% against 55.4%. 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 $0.0002 per sample against $0.0013. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GLM 5.3 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.8s per inference against 8.7s. 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.