Roboflow

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare GLM 5.3 Flash and Muse Spark 1.2 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 Spark 1.2 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
Z.aiGLM 5.3 Flash
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 59.0% to 33.1%.

Overall, GLM 5.3 Flash averages 55.8% (#42 of 61) against 73.8% (#15 of 61) for Muse Spark 1.2.

GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0006 vs $0.0083 per sample) and faster (9.3s vs 11.5s per sample).

GLM 5.3 FlashMuse Spark 1.2

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 10, 2026

PropertyGLM 5.3 FlashMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationZ.aiMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters320B total, 18B activeUnknown
LicenseMITProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.150$1.25
Output $/1M$0.500$4.25
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
55.8%
73.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0006$0.0083
Avg speed / sample9.29s11.51s
By task
Object Detection (low)
33.1%
$0.0008
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
Object Detection (high)–
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)
55.4%
$0.0002
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
Counting (high)–
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)
84.4%
$0.0002
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
Identification (high)–
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)
55.4%
$0.0007
68.7%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
47.4%
Transcription
81.5%
Structured JSON
72.0%
Text localization
18.6%
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
OCR (high)
55.3%
$0.0011
68.6%
$0.014
by category
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
72.2%
Structured JSON
72.0%
Text localization
14.5%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Reasoning (low)
51.0%
$0.0002
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)
59.6%
$0.0003
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2: 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. 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 Spark 1.2

Muse Spark 1.2 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released as a coding-focused update to Muse Spark 1.1. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents and returns text, with a context window of roughly one million tokens that allows whole repositories, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request. The model thinks before answering, and the amount of reasoning effort it spends is configurable per request. Alongside its visual and document understanding, it supports structured output and parallel function calling, and it is designed to operate either as a planning agent that delegates work or as a subagent executing tasks in parallel.

Training for version 1.2 scaled up compute on coding tasks and widened the diversity of training environments, concentrating on long-horizon work such as whole-repository generation, large end-to-end projects, and automated research. Part of the training data was self-generated, with Muse Spark 1.1 producing coding environments and instruction-following templates and grading candidate solutions against them. The model was co-trained with the Muse Code terminal agent, incorporating rejection-sampled harness trajectories and that toolset. Meta reports 82.9 percent on Terminal-Bench 2.1, an improvement of 6.7 points over Muse Spark 1.1. Multimodal use cases documented for the family include visual-to-code generation and detailed image and video captioning.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.2 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 73.8% (#15 of 61) against 55.8% (#42 of 61) 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 Spark 1.2 leads with 59.0% 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 $0.0006 per sample against $0.0083. GLM 5.3 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.2 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GLM 5.3 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.3s per inference against 11.5s. 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.