Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Spark 1.3 side-by-side.
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3 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
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3 on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Identification, where Muse Spark 1.3 leads 92.7% to 83.3%.
Overall, Claude Haiku 5.5 averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 79.8% (#15 of 61) for Muse Spark 1.3.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is both cheaper ($0.0005 vs $0.0075 per sample) and faster (13.2s vs 23.1s per sample).
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3 Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026
| Property | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | undisclosed | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $0.500 | $4.25 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 77.2% | 79.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0005 | $0.0075 |
| Avg speed / sample | 13.23s | 23.14s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 65.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.1 to 66.2 | 58.6% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4 |
| Object Detection (high) | 68.2% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.2 to 69.2 | 56.6% ±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3 |
| Counting (low) | 68.9% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 74.3 | 74.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 |
| Counting (high) | 73.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 74.3 | 75.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | 83.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 90.1% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.8 to 91.0 | 91.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.6 |
| OCR (high) | 88.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 89.6 | 86.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.2 to 90.4 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 85.9% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 87.6 | 88.7% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 87.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.6 | 87.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6 |
| Reasoning (low) | 68.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.9 to 70.9 | 73.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 77.5 | 73.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3: Overview
Claude Haiku 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the smallest member of the Claude 5.5 family, released on October 7, 2026 after Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 1M token context window and up to 128K output tokens per request. It is the first Haiku-class model with an adjustable effort parameter: adaptive thinking is on by default and the model decides how much to reason, steered by effort levels from low to max with medium as the default. Its training data cutoff is June 2026. Pricing starts at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens for prompts up to 100K tokens, which Anthropic reports is about 90% lower than Claude Haiku 4.5 for requests in that range.
Anthropic positions Haiku 5.5 for high-volume, latency-sensitive work such as classification, extraction, routing, summarization, and subagent tasks, and describes it as its fastest model to date at standard speed. On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, it scores 46.4% on Chartography, a chart reading benchmark, compared with 6.4% for Haiku 4.5 and 61.6% for Sonnet 5.5, and 72.4% on the offline subset of OSWorld 2.1, a screenshot driven computer use benchmark, compared with 15.7% for Haiku 4.5. It uses the same tokenizer as Claude Opus 4.7 and later models, so the same text counts as roughly 30% more tokens than on Haiku 4.5.
Muse Spark 1.3 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs and the fourth Muse Spark release in five months, arriving on September 2, 2026. It takes text, images, video, and document files as input and returns text, and it operates over a context window of 1,048,576 tokens. Meta trains the model for long-horizon agentic work, so it carries accumulated context and prior tool results forward across many turns, reconciles messy or conflicting inputs, and asks for clarification when a task is underspecified. Visual inputs such as screenshots and video clips feed a reasoning loop that runs against a real execution environment rather than a scripted sequence of steps.
The model exposes graded reasoning effort settings. An xhigh configuration is generally available at launch, while a max reasoning configuration aimed at harder reasoning and agentic problems arrives after further safety testing. Artificial Analysis measures Muse Spark 1.3 (max) at 62 on its Intelligence Index and the xhigh configuration at 61, with agentic tool-use evaluations driving most of the gain over Muse Spark 1.2; max reaches 52% on Tau3-Bench Banking by spending more turns and reasoning tokens than xhigh. Prior Muse Spark versions emit bounding box coordinates, transcriptions, and structured field extractions from images on Roboflow Vision Evals.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.3 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#15 of 61) against 77.2% (#20 of 61) for Claude Haiku 5.5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Identification benchmark at low effort, Muse Spark 1.3 leads with 92.7% against 83.3%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0005 per sample against $0.0075. Claude Haiku 5.5 is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.3 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 13.2s per inference against 23.1s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.