Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare Muse Glimmer 30B and Qwen3.8 27B 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 Qwen3.8 27B 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.7% to 41.0%.
Overall, Muse Glimmer 30B averages 70.8% (#29 of 61) against 74.7% (#22 of 61) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.0011 per sample), while Muse Glimmer 30B is faster (8.7s vs 18.0s per sample).
Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 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 | $0.300 | $0.025 |
| Output $/1M | $1.20 | $4.35 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | 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% | 74.7% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0011 | $0.0009 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.70s | 17.99s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 41.0% | 65.7% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 66.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8 |
| Counting (low) | 66.2% | 64.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9 |
| Counting (high) | – | 68.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3 |
| Identification (low) | 81.3% | 85.4% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 92.1% | 92.2% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.1 to 93.4 |
| OCR (high) | – | 91.5% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 92.9 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 86.6% | 78.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.3 to 79.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 80.8% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 |
| Reasoning (low) | 57.6% | 62.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 62.9% | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9 |
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, Qwen3.8 27B performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 74.7% (#22 of 61) against 70.8% (#29 of 61) 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, Qwen3.8 27B leads with 65.7% against 41.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 per sample against $0.0011. 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 18.0s. 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.