Roboflow

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Compare GPT-6.1 Sol 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 GPT-6.1 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-6.1 Sol
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals

GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 80.8% to 41.0%.

Overall, GPT-6.1 Sol averages 85.5% (#4 of 61) against 70.8% (#29 of 61) for Muse Glimmer 30B.

Muse Glimmer 30B is both cheaper ($0.0011 vs $0.0061 per sample) and faster (8.7s vs 14.3s per sample).

GPT-6.1 SolMuse Glimmer 30B

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026

PropertyGPT-6.1 SolMuse Glimmer 30B
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.1M131K
Parametersundisclosed29.6B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.300
Output $/1M$10.00$1.20
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Promptable Concept SegmentationDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
85.5%
70.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0061$0.0011
Avg speed / sample14.31s8.70s
By task
Object Detection (low)
80.8%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9
$0.010
41.0%
$0.0017
Object Detection (high)
81.6%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0
$0.022
–
Counting (low)
78.8%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4
$0.0037
66.2%
$0.0007
Counting (high)
80.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8
$0.0057
–
Identification (low)
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0025
81.3%
$0.0005
Identification (high)
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0030
–
OCR (low)
92.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.5
$0.0064
92.1%
$0.0010
OCR (high)
91.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.2 to 91.9
$0.017
–
Data Extraction (low)
88.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 88.7
$0.0030
86.6%
$0.0006
Data Extraction (high)
90.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7
$0.0037
–
Reasoning (low)
83.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8
$0.0033
57.6%
$0.0009
Reasoning (high)
88.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4
$0.0042
62.9%
$0.0026

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview

GPT-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol is a reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-6 series that accepts text and image input and returns text. It is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol positioned to approach the intelligence of the larger GPT-6 Astra model on agentic coding, computer use, and professional knowledge work. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning effort control, ranging from low settings for simple turns to maximum settings for harder tasks, and can be driven with tool use enabled or disabled. It operates over a context window of roughly one million tokens and emits up to 128,000 output tokens in a single response, which supports long-running agent loops over large codebases and multi-document collections. Audio and video inputs are not supported.

On the visual side, the model is evaluated on GDP.pdf, a benchmark that asks professional questions about complex PDF documents containing tables, charts, diagrams, and fine-print details, and on OSWorld 2.0, which measures agents operating graphical computer applications. OpenAI reports that GPT-6.1 Sol performs on par with or better than GPT-6 Sol across its image input safety evaluations, and that the share of responses containing a factual error at low reasoning effort falls from 11.4 percent to 7.7 percent.

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-6.1 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#4 of 61) against 70.8% (#29 of 61) 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 at low effort, GPT-6.1 Sol leads with 80.8% 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 $0.0011 per sample against $0.0061. GPT-6.1 Sol is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Muse Glimmer 30B is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $1.20 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 14.3s. 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.