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 six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 60.2% to 41.0%.

Overall, Muse Glimmer 30B averages 70.8% (#14 of 28) against 80.4% (#5 of 28) for Muse Spark 1.2.

Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.0071 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (7.8s vs 8.7s per sample).

Muse Glimmer 30BMuse Spark 1.2

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

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

PropertyMuse Glimmer 30BMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationMetaMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 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%
80.4%
Avg cost / sample$0.0013$0.0071
Avg speed / sample8.70s7.78s
By task
Object Detection
41.0%
$0.0020
60.2%
$0.0094
Counting
66.2%
$0.0008
74.3%
$0.0049
Identification
81.3%
$0.0006
90.6%
$0.0038
OCR
92.1%
$0.0012
93.8%
$0.0079
Data Extraction
86.6%
$0.0007
88.7%
$0.0033
Reasoning (low)
57.6%
$0.0010
74.8%
$0.0074
Reasoning (high)
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.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.2 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 80.4% (#5 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 1.2 leads with 60.2% 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 $0.0071. Muse Glimmer 30B is priced at $0.35 per 1M input tokens and $1.50 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.2 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 Spark 1.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s per inference against 8.7s. 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.