Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR, Image Captioning, Object Detection, Open Prompt, and Classification.

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
OpenAIGPT-5.6 Sol
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals

GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 68.2% to 41.0%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Sol averages 76.9% (#10 of 30) against 70.8% (#15 of 30) for Muse Glimmer 30B.

Muse Glimmer 30B is both cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.025 per sample) and faster (8.7s vs 11.7s per sample).

GPT-5.6 SolMuse Glimmer 30B

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table

Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.6 SolMuse Glimmer 30B
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.5M131K
Parameters29.6B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$0.350
Output $/1M$30.00$1.50
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
76.9%
70.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.025$0.0013
Avg speed / sample11.72s8.70s
By task
Object Detection
68.2%
$0.045
41.0%
$0.0020
Counting
73.0%
$0.013
66.2%
$0.0008
Identification
81.3%
$0.0070
81.3%
$0.0006
OCR
90.7%
$0.032
92.1%
$0.0012
Data Extraction
82.5%
$0.0085
86.6%
$0.0007
Reasoning (low)
65.6%
$0.011
57.6%
$0.0010
Reasoning (high)
72.2%
$0.016
62.9%
$0.0033

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview

GPT-5.6 Sol

GPT-5.6 Sol is the flagship model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes Terra (a balanced everyday-work tier) and Luna (a fast, cost-efficient tier). Sol is designed for demanding reasoning, long-horizon agentic workflows, software engineering, computer use, scientific research, and cybersecurity tasks. It introduces two new capability modes: a "max" reasoning effort setting that allocates additional compute time for difficult problems, and an "ultra" mode that coordinates multiple subagents in parallel to accelerate complex, multi-step work. The model supports native multimodal input, allowing it to process screenshots, diagrams, charts, documents, and photographs alongside text. A reported context window of approximately 1.5 million tokens enables processing of large codebases, lengthy research documents, and extended agentic sessions.

GPT-5.6 Sol was announced on June 26, 2026, initially in a limited preview for trusted partners, and reached general availability on July 9, 2026. On the Agents' Last Exam benchmark, which evaluates long-running professional workflows across 55 fields, Sol scores 53.6. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, which tests command-line agentic coding workflows, Sol Ultra achieves 91.9%. The model also demonstrates gains in life sciences evaluations, including long-horizon genomics and quantitative biology analyses. OpenAI paired the release with its most extensive safety evaluation to date, combining human red teaming with large-scale automated testing, and classified Sol as High capability in both cybersecurity and biological risk under its Preparedness Framework, though it does not cross the Critical threshold in either category.

Muse Glimmer 30B

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, GPT-5.6 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the six vision tasks and averages 76.9% (#10 of 30) against 70.8% (#15 of 30) for Muse Glimmer 30B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, GPT-5.6 Sol leads with 68.2% against 41.0%. 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 $0.025. GPT-5.6 Sol is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $30.00 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.

Muse Glimmer 30B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.7s per inference against 11.7s. 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 OCR and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.