Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B
Compare Muse Glimmer 30B and Qwen3.5 35B A3B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and OCR.
Compare Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B on Vision Evals
Muse Glimmer 30B scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.5 35B A3B leads 52.9% to 41.0%.
Overall, Muse Glimmer 30B averages 70.8% (#29 of 61) against 69.4% (#31 of 61) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B.
Muse Glimmer 30B is both cheaper ($0.0011 vs $0.0016 per sample) and faster (8.7s vs 31.9s per sample).
Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B Comparison Table
Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026
| Property | Muse Glimmer 30B | Qwen3.5 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 131K | 262K |
| Parameters | 29.6B | 35B |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $0.163 |
| Output $/1M | $1.20 | $1.30 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| 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% | 69.4% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0011 | $0.0016 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.70s | 31.88s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 41.0% | 52.9% ±3.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.5 to 55.9 |
| Counting | 66.2% | 62.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9 |
| Identification | 81.3% | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 |
| OCR | 92.1% | 83.0% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.7 to 83.5 |
| Data Extraction | 86.6% | 83.5% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 85.6 |
| Reasoning (low) | 57.6% | 54.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 53.6 to 54.3 |
| Reasoning (high) | 62.9% | – |
Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B: Overview
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.
The Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is a native vision-language model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team, released on February 24, 2026, as a high-efficiency entry in the Qwen 3.5 family. It utilizes a sophisticated hybrid architecture that integrates Gated Delta Networks with a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system. While the model houses 35 billion total parameters, its routing mechanism activates only 8 routed experts and 1 shared expert per token, totaling approximately 3 billion active parameters. This design achieves cross-generational parity with the previous flagship Qwen3-235B dense model, delivering comparable reasoning and multimodal intelligence with significantly reduced inference latency and compute requirements. Available under the Apache 2.0 license, it is released in both base and instruction-tuned variants for seamless integration with open-source stacks like vLLM and Hugging Face Transformers.
Designed for the emerging era of agentic AI, the model utilizes a unified multimodal foundation built through early-fusion training. This approach allows it to outperform the prior Qwen3-VL series in spatial grounding, document analysis, and UI/GUI interaction. It features a native context window of 262,144 tokens, which is extensible up to 1,010,000 tokensvia RoPE scaling, and provides global support for 201 languages and dialects. This combination of a compact active parameter count and frontier-level visual comprehension makes it a versatile tool for developers requiring a balance of high-throughput speed and sophisticated visual reasoning for long-context workflows.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Glimmer 30B performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 70.8% (#29 of 61) against 69.4% (#31 of 61) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B. 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, Qwen3.5 35B A3B leads with 52.9% 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 $0.0016. 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 31.9s. 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.