Roboflow

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Compare Muse Glimmer 30B and Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Flash 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.
QwenQwen3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

Muse Glimmer 30B scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Glimmer 30B leads 57.6% to 37.8%.

Overall, Muse Glimmer 30B averages 70.8% (#15 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0013 per sample) and faster (8.2s vs 8.7s per sample).

Muse Glimmer 30BQwen3.8 Flash

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated August 27, 2026Pricing updated August 27, 2026

PropertyMuse Glimmer 30BQwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window131K1.0M
Parameters29.6B125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseApache 2.0Custom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.350$0.150
Output $/1M$1.50$0.470
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%
70.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0013$0.0004
Avg speed / sample8.70s8.24s
By task
Object Detection
41.0%
$0.0020
58.5%
$0.0007
Counting
66.2%
$0.0008
59.5%
$0.0002
Identification
81.3%
$0.0006
90.6%
$0.0001
OCR
92.1%
$0.0012
88.9%
$0.0003
Data Extraction
86.6%
$0.0007
86.6%
$0.0002
Reasoning (low)
57.6%
$0.0010
37.8%
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
62.9%
$0.0033
68.9%
$0.0011

Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8 Flash: 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.

Qwen3.8 Flash

Qwen3.8-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.

Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Glimmer 30B performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the six vision tasks and averages 70.8% (#15 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Flash. 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 37.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0013. Muse Glimmer 30B is priced at $0.35 per 1M input tokens and $1.50 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.47 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.2s per inference against 8.7s. 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.