Roboflow

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.3

Compare Muse Glimmer 30B and Muse Spark 1.3 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 1.3 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 1.3
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.3 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Spark 1.3 leads 58.6% to 41.0%.

Overall, Muse Glimmer 30B averages 70.8% (#22 of 52) against 79.8% (#10 of 52) for Muse Spark 1.3.

Muse Glimmer 30B is both cheaper ($0.0011 vs $0.0075 per sample) and faster (8.7s vs 23.1s per sample).

Muse Glimmer 30BMuse Spark 1.3

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.3 Comparison Table

Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 3, 2026

PropertyMuse Glimmer 30BMuse Spark 1.3
OrganizationMetaMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Sep 2026
Context Window131K1.0M
Parameters29.6B
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$1.25
Output $/1M$1.10$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%
79.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0011$0.0075
Avg speed / sample8.70s23.14s
By task
Object Detection (low)
41.0%
$0.0016
58.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
56.6%
±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3
$0.017
Counting (low)
66.2%
$0.0007
74.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0049
Counting (high)
75.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7
$0.0094
Identification (low)
81.3%
$0.0005
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0036
Identification (high)
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0063
OCR (low)
92.1%
$0.0009
91.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.6
$0.0083
OCR (high)
86.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.2 to 90.4
$0.015
Data Extraction (low)
86.6%
$0.0006
88.7%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0031
Data Extraction (high)
87.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6
$0.0044
Reasoning (low)
57.6%
$0.0008
73.3%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.0064
Reasoning (high)
62.9%
$0.0025
73.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.012

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Spark 1.3: 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 1.3

Muse Spark 1.3 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs and the fourth Muse Spark release in five months, arriving on September 2, 2026. It takes text, images, video, and document files as input and returns text, and it operates over a context window of 1,048,576 tokens. Meta trains the model for long-horizon agentic work, so it carries accumulated context and prior tool results forward across many turns, reconciles messy or conflicting inputs, and asks for clarification when a task is underspecified. Visual inputs such as screenshots and video clips feed a reasoning loop that runs against a real execution environment rather than a scripted sequence of steps.

The model exposes graded reasoning effort settings. An xhigh configuration is generally available at launch, while a max reasoning configuration aimed at harder reasoning and agentic problems arrives after further safety testing. Artificial Analysis measures Muse Spark 1.3 (max) at 62 on its Intelligence Index and the xhigh configuration at 61, with agentic tool-use evaluations driving most of the gain over Muse Spark 1.2; max reaches 52% on Tau3-Bench Banking by spending more turns and reasoning tokens than xhigh. Prior Muse Spark versions emit bounding box coordinates, transcriptions, and structured field extractions from images on Roboflow Vision Evals.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.3 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#10 of 52) against 70.8% (#22 of 52) 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 at low effort, Muse Spark 1.3 leads with 58.6% 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 $0.0075. Muse Glimmer 30B is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $1.10 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.3 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 23.1s. 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.