Roboflow

GPT-6 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Compare GPT-6 Sol and Muse Glimmer 30B side-by-side.

Compare GPT-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.

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

OpenAI

GPT-6 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals

GPT-6 Sol scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6 Sol leads 73.6% to 41.0%.

Overall, GPT-6 Sol averages 80.7% (#10 of 57) against 70.8% (#26 of 57) for Muse Glimmer 30B.

Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper ($0.0011 vs $0.0065 per sample), while GPT-6 Sol is faster (8.1s vs 8.7s per sample).

GPT-6 SolMuse Glimmer 30B

GPT-6 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026

PropertyGPT-6 SolMuse Glimmer 30B
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.1M131K
Parametersundisclosed29.6B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300
Output $/1M$1.20
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
80.7%
70.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0065$0.0011
Avg speed / sample8.15s8.70s
By task
Object Detection (low)
73.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.9 to 74.2
$0.011
41.0%
$0.0017
Object Detection (high)
75.2%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.9
$0.022
Counting (low)
74.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 77.0
$0.0039
66.2%
$0.0007
Counting (high)
76.1%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 78.4
$0.0071
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0027
81.3%
$0.0005
Identification (high)
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0036
OCR (low)
91.7%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 92.1
$0.0070
92.1%
$0.0010
OCR (high)
91.9%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.2
$0.019
Data Extraction (low)
80.4%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 80.4
$0.0031
86.6%
$0.0006
Data Extraction (high)
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0045
Reasoning (low)
72.2%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 74.2
$0.0039
57.6%
$0.0009
Reasoning (high)
77.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 80.8
$0.0069
62.9%
$0.0026

GPT-6 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview

GPT-6 Sol

GPT-6 Sol is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI, released on September 22, 2026 alongside GPT-6 Luna as an efficiency-oriented tier of the GPT-6 family that began with GPT-6 Astra. OpenAI states that Sol and Luna are trained with methods similar to those used for Astra, carrying the same work on professional tasks, factuality, coding, computer use, and alignment into models that run faster. Sol accepts text and image input and returns text output, and OpenAI documents a context window of roughly one million tokens together with a knowledge cutoff of April 20, 2026.

The model targets complex coding and agentic workflows and exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with levels of none, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max, which trades latency and token consumption against answer quality. OpenAI reports results including 33.2% on AutomationBench at xhigh effort and 56.4% on Agents' Last Exam at max effort, while its reported DeepSWE and OSWorld 2.0 figures of 68.8% and 64.4% fall below those of the earlier GPT-5.6 Sol. Its vision behavior covers image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, captioning, document and chart interpretation, and text recognition.

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 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 80.7% (#10 of 57) against 70.8% (#26 of 57) 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 Sol leads with 73.6% 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 $0.0065. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-6 Sol is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.1s per inference against 8.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.