Roboflow

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.1

Compare Muse Glimmer 30B and Muse Spark 1.1 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.

Compare Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.1 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
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.1
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.1 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Spark 1.1 leads 58.4% to 41.0%.

Overall, Muse Glimmer 30B averages 70.8% (#14 of 28) against 79.3% (#6 of 28) for Muse Spark 1.1.

Muse Glimmer 30B is both cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.0069 per sample) and faster (8.7s vs 11.4s per sample).

Muse Glimmer 30BMuse Spark 1.1

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.1 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 12, 2026Pricing updated August 13, 2026

PropertyMuse Glimmer 30BMuse Spark 1.1
OrganizationMetaMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Jul 2026
Context Window131K1.0M
Parameters29.6B
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.350$1.25
Output $/1M$1.50$4.25
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
70.8%
79.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0013$0.0069
Avg speed / sample8.70s11.40s
By task
Object Detection
41.0%
$0.0020
58.4%
$0.010
Counting
66.2%
$0.0008
75.7%
$0.0043
Identification
81.3%
$0.0006
87.5%
$0.0032
OCR
92.1%
$0.0012
92.5%
$0.0063
Data Extraction
86.6%
$0.0007
86.6%
$0.0031
Reasoning (low)
57.6%
$0.0010
74.8%
$0.0065
Reasoning (high)
76.2%
$0.013

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.1: Overview

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.

Muse Spark 1.1

Muse Spark 1.1 is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released on July 9, 2026, as a significant upgrade to the original Muse Spark. The model accepts text, image, video, PDF, and audio as input and produces text output. It operates with a 1-million-token context window (1,048,576 tokens per the Meta Model API documentation) and is designed specifically for agentic tasks that require planning, tool use, computer use, and multi-agent orchestration. The model runs in a "Thinking" mode, where adjustable reasoning effort is applied before generating a response. It can function both as a main agent gathering context, forming plans, and delegating to parallel subagents and as a subagent that adheres to assigned tasks and escalates when needed. It is trained to decide autonomously when to write automation scripts versus interact directly with a user interface.

Muse Spark 1.1 supports a range of multimodal capabilities including visual perception, image and video captioning, visual-to-code generation, and document analysis. The model was evaluated under Meta's Advanced AI Scaling Framework across frontier risk categories including chemical and biological threats, cybersecurity, and loss-of-control scenarios. Parameter count, architecture details, and training data composition are not publicly disclosed. The model is proprietary and closed-weight, accessible to consumers through the Meta AI app and to developers via the Meta Model API, which launched in public preview alongside this release.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.1 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 79.3% (#6 of 28) against 70.8% (#14 of 28) for Muse Glimmer 30B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Muse Spark 1.1 leads with 58.4% 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 $0.0069. Muse Glimmer 30B is priced at $0.35 per 1M input tokens and $1.50 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.1 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 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 11.4s. 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 open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.