GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3
Compare GLM 5.3 Flash and Muse Spark 1.3 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 1.3 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 Spark 1.3 on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Spark 1.3 leads 58.6% to 33.1%.
Overall, GLM 5.3 Flash averages 66.3% (#32 of 52) against 79.8% (#10 of 52) for Muse Spark 1.3.
GLM 5.3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0002 vs $0.0075 per sample) and faster (6.8s vs 23.1s per sample).
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 3, 2026
| Property | GLM 5.3 Flash | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | Meta |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 320B total, 18B active | |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.075 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $0.250 | $4.25 |
| 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% | 79.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0002 | $0.0075 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.78s | 23.14s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 33.1% | 58.6% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 56.6% ±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3 |
| Counting (low) | 55.4% | 74.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 |
| Counting (high) | – | 75.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | 84.4% | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | – | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 90.6% | 91.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.6 |
| OCR (high) | – | 86.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.2 to 90.4 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 83.5% | 88.7% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 87.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6 |
| Reasoning (low) | 51.0% | 73.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 59.6% | 73.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3: 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 Spark 1.3 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs and the fourth Muse Spark release in five months, arriving on September 2, 2026. It takes text, images, video, and document files as input and returns text, and it operates over a context window of 1,048,576 tokens. Meta trains the model for long-horizon agentic work, so it carries accumulated context and prior tool results forward across many turns, reconciles messy or conflicting inputs, and asks for clarification when a task is underspecified. Visual inputs such as screenshots and video clips feed a reasoning loop that runs against a real execution environment rather than a scripted sequence of steps.
The model exposes graded reasoning effort settings. An xhigh configuration is generally available at launch, while a max reasoning configuration aimed at harder reasoning and agentic problems arrives after further safety testing. Artificial Analysis measures Muse Spark 1.3 (max) at 62 on its Intelligence Index and the xhigh configuration at 61, with agentic tool-use evaluations driving most of the gain over Muse Spark 1.2; max reaches 52% on Tau3-Bench Banking by spending more turns and reasoning tokens than xhigh. Prior Muse Spark versions emit bounding box coordinates, transcriptions, and structured field extractions from images on Roboflow Vision Evals.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.3 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#10 of 52) against 66.3% (#32 of 52) 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 1.3 leads with 58.6% 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 $0.0002 per sample against $0.0075. GLM 5.3 Flash is priced at $0.07 per 1M input tokens and $0.25 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.3 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 6.8s per inference against 23.1s. 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.