Roboflow

GLM 5V Turbo vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare GLM 5V Turbo 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 5V Turbo 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 5V Turbo
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GLM 5V Turbo vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 75.1% to 31.8%.

Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 54.6% (#49 of 63) against 73.8% (#17 of 63) for Muse Spark 1.2.

GLM 5V Turbo is both cheaper ($0.0037 vs $0.0083 per sample) and faster (5.9s vs 11.5s per sample).

GLM 5V TurboMuse Spark 1.2

GLM 5V Turbo vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 25, 2026

PropertyGLM 5V TurboMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationZ.aiMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Aug 2026
Context Window200K1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.20$1.25
Output $/1M$4.00$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
54.6%
73.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0037$0.0083
Avg speed / sample5.89s11.51s
By task
Object Detection (low)
56.5%
$0.0052
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)
48.6%
$0.0017
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%
$0.0015
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)
51.5%
$0.0039
68.7%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
43.0%
Transcription
78.0%
Structured JSON
67.5%
Text localization
17.7%
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
OCR (high)
56.0%
$0.0080
68.6%
$0.014
by category
Single value
44.4%
Transcription
77.8%
Structured JSON
69.6%
Text localization
38.7%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Reasoning (low)
31.8%
$0.0017
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)
49.7%
$0.0069
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

GLM 5V Turbo vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

GLM 5V Turbo

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 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.