GLM 5V Turbo vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Compare GLM 5V Turbo 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 5V Turbo 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 5V Turbo vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals
Muse Glimmer 30B scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Glimmer 30B leads 57.6% to 31.8%.
Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 65.3% (#25 of 33) against 70.8% (#15 of 33) for Muse Glimmer 30B.
Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.0031 per sample), while GLM 5V Turbo is faster (6.3s vs 8.7s per sample).
GLM 5V Turbo vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 26, 2026Pricing updated August 26, 2026
| Property | GLM 5V Turbo | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | Meta |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 131K |
| Parameters | 29.6B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.20 | $0.350 |
| Output $/1M | $4.00 | $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 | 65.3% | 70.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0031 | $0.0013 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.35s | 8.70s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 56.5% $0.0052 | 41.0% $0.0020 |
| Counting | 48.6% $0.0017 | 66.2% $0.0008 |
| Identification | 84.4% $0.0015 | 81.3% $0.0006 |
| OCR | 89.3% $0.0030 | 92.1% $0.0012 |
| Data Extraction | 81.4% $0.0018 | 86.6% $0.0007 |
| Reasoning (low) | 31.8% $0.0017 | 57.6% $0.0010 |
| Reasoning (high) | 49.7% $0.0069 | 62.9% $0.0033 |
GLM 5V Turbo vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview
GLM-5V-Turbo is a native multimodal model from Z.ai that extends the GLM family with joint image, video, and text input aimed at vision-centered coding and agent workflows. The model reads screenshots, design drafts, document layouts, and interface captures and generates runnable code from them, covering tasks such as turning a visual design into a working front end, diagnosing rendering and layout defects from screen captures, and operating graphical user interfaces during long-horizon agent runs. It accepts roughly 200,000 input tokens and can emit up to 131,072 output tokens in a single response, which supports sessions that hold specifications, source files, logs, and visual references at the same time.
Training includes a joint reinforcement learning stage spanning more than 30 tasks simultaneously, an approach Z.ai describes as a way to counter the trade-off in which improving visual recognition degrades programming ability and the reverse. Reported evaluations cover pure-text coding on the backend, frontend, and repository exploration tracks of CC-Bench-V2, together with agent execution suites such as PinchBench, ClawEval, and ZClawBench, indicating that text coding behavior is retained after visual input is added.
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 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 70.8% (#15 of 33) against 65.3% (#25 of 33) for GLM 5V Turbo. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Glimmer 30B leads with 57.6% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0013 per sample against $0.0031. GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output; Muse Glimmer 30B is priced at $0.35 per 1M input tokens and $1.50 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GLM 5V Turbo is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s 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.