Roboflow

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare Muse Glimmer 30B and Muse Spark 1.2 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 1.2 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 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 59.0% to 41.0%.

Overall, Muse Glimmer 30B averages 61.4% (#32 of 61) against 73.8% (#15 of 61) for Muse Spark 1.2.

Muse Glimmer 30B is both cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.0083 per sample) and faster (10.6s vs 11.5s per sample).

Muse Glimmer 30BMuse Spark 1.2

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 9, 2026

PropertyMuse Glimmer 30BMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationMetaMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window131K1.0M
Parameters29.6BUnknown
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$1.25
Output $/1M$1.20$4.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
61.4%
73.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0013$0.0083
Avg speed / sample10.60s11.51s
By task
Object Detection (low)
41.0%
$0.0017
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
Object Detection (high)–
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)
66.2%
$0.0007
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
Counting (high)–
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)
81.3%
$0.0005
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
Identification (high)–
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)
60.7%
$0.0013
68.7%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
82.9%
Structured JSON
80.2%
Text localization
14.8%
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
OCR (high)
60.1%
$0.0033
68.6%
$0.014
by category
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
78.4%
Structured JSON
80.0%
Text localization
13.7%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Reasoning (low)
57.6%
$0.0009
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)
62.9%
$0.0026
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.2: 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 1.2

Muse Spark 1.2 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released as a coding-focused update to Muse Spark 1.1. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents and returns text, with a context window of roughly one million tokens that allows whole repositories, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request. The model thinks before answering, and the amount of reasoning effort it spends is configurable per request. Alongside its visual and document understanding, it supports structured output and parallel function calling, and it is designed to operate either as a planning agent that delegates work or as a subagent executing tasks in parallel.

Training for version 1.2 scaled up compute on coding tasks and widened the diversity of training environments, concentrating on long-horizon work such as whole-repository generation, large end-to-end projects, and automated research. Part of the training data was self-generated, with Muse Spark 1.1 producing coding environments and instruction-following templates and grading candidate solutions against them. The model was co-trained with the Muse Code terminal agent, incorporating rejection-sampled harness trajectories and that toolset. Meta reports 82.9 percent on Terminal-Bench 2.1, an improvement of 6.7 points over Muse Spark 1.1. Multimodal use cases documented for the family include visual-to-code generation and detailed image and video captioning.