Roboflow

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Wonder

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

Models in this comparison

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals

Muse Wonder scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 57.6%.

Overall, Muse Glimmer 30B averages 61.4% (#34 of 63) against 78.8% (#9 of 63) for Muse Wonder.

Muse Glimmer 30B is both cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (10.6s vs 11.7s per sample).

Muse Glimmer 30BMuse Wonder

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 22, 2026

PropertyMuse Glimmer 30BMuse Wonder
OrganizationMetaMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Oct 2026
Context Window131K1.0M
Parameters29.6Bundisclosed
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Commercial usefree for commercial usecommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$4.00
Output $/1M$1.20$20.00
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%
78.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0013$0.034
Avg speed / sample10.60s11.68s
By task
Object Detection (low)
41.0%
$0.0017
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
Object Detection (high)–
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
Counting (low)
66.2%
$0.0007
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
Counting (high)–
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
Identification (low)
81.3%
$0.0005
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
Identification (high)–
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
OCR (low)
60.7%
$0.0013
74.3%
$0.034
by category
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
82.9%
Structured JSON
80.2%
Text localization
14.8%
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
OCR (high)
60.1%
$0.0033
76.0%
$0.059
by category
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
78.4%
Structured JSON
80.0%
Text localization
13.7%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Reasoning (low)
57.6%
$0.0009
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
Reasoning (high)
62.9%
$0.0026
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Muse Wonder: 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 Wonder

Muse Wonder is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on October 12, 2026 as the first step past the Muse Spark line on Meta's scaling ladder. It launched together with Muse Wonder Full, a larger configuration that is available only through Muse Code subscription plans, while Muse Wonder itself is served through the Meta Model API under the identifier muse-wonder-1.0. The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents as input and returns text, with a context window of 1,048,576 tokens and graded reasoning effort settings. Meta trained both models at its Prometheus data center on larger base models than Muse Spark 1.3, and attributes their gains on unfamiliar tasks to post-training that transfers more effectively from a stronger base.

Meta positions Muse Wonder for long-running personal and professional agents: it plans multi-step work, delegates to sub-agents, calls tools in parallel, recovers from errors, and operates browsers and desktop or mobile applications. Two training objectives shape this behaviour. Active Memory carries goals, constraints, and earlier decisions across conversations and retrieves the details relevant to the current step, and Active Focus keeps the model trying alternative approaches when a task gets difficult while asking for clarification before important actions. Visual inputs such as screenshots, charts, and video feed the same reasoning loop, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for grounding queries. Meta's model card lists visual and spatial reasoning, especially 3D tasks, as a known limitation and recommends validating performance for applications that depend on precise spatial understanding.