Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare Muse Glimmer 30B and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.
Compare Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8 27B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals
Muse Glimmer 30B scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Glimmer 30B leads 57.6% to 31.8%.
Overall, Muse Glimmer 30B averages 70.8% (#15 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.0018 per sample), while Qwen3.8 27B is faster (7.3s vs 8.7s per sample).
Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Muse Glimmer 30B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 131K | 262K |
| Parameters | 29.6B | 27.78B |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.350 | $0.450 |
| Output $/1M | $1.50 | $3.20 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Object Detection | 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% | 61.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0013 | $0.0018 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.70s | 7.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 41.0% $0.0020 | 54.5% $0.0036 |
| Counting | 66.2% $0.0008 | 41.9% $0.0005 |
| Identification | 81.3% $0.0006 | 78.1% $0.0005 |
| OCR | 92.1% $0.0012 | 81.4% $0.0019 |
| Data Extraction | 86.6% $0.0007 | 79.4% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (low) | 57.6% $0.0010 | 31.8% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (high) | 62.9% $0.0033 | 62.3% $0.0087 |
Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8 27B: 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.
Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.
Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.
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% (#15 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Glimmer 30B leads with 57.6% against 31.8%. 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 $0.0018. Muse Glimmer 30B is priced at $0.35 per 1M input tokens and $1.50 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 27B is priced at $0.45 per 1M input tokens and $3.20 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.8 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.3s per inference against 8.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.