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
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 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026
| Property | GPT-6 Sol | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Meta |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | 131K |
| Parameters | undisclosed | 29.6B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | |
| Output $/1M | $1.20 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| 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 / sample | 8.15s | 8.70s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 73.6% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.9 to 74.2 | 41.0% |
| Object Detection (high) | 75.2% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.9 | – |
| Counting (low) | 74.8% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 77.0 | 66.2% |
| Counting (high) | 76.1% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 78.4 | – |
| Identification (low) | 91.7% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 | 81.3% |
| Identification (high) | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 | – |
| OCR (low) | 91.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 92.1 | 92.1% |
| OCR (high) | 91.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.2 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 80.4% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 80.4 | 86.6% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 72.2% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 74.2 | 57.6% |
| Reasoning (high) | 77.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 80.8 | 62.9% |
GPT-6 Sol vs Muse Glimmer 30B: Overview
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 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.