Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2
Compare Claude Opus 4.6 and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, Object Detection, Classification, and Image Captioning.
Compare Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2 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
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 5, 2026Pricing updated September 21, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $4.25 |
| 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 | Not evaluated | 80.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | – | $0.0072 |
| Avg speed / sample | – | 7.81s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | – | 59.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 60.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7 |
| Counting (low) | – | 76.6% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7 |
| Counting (high) | – | 75.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 |
| Identification (low) | – | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 87.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | – | 93.6% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.9 to 94.1 |
| OCR (high) | – | 92.9% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 93.6 |
| Data Extraction (low) | – | 89.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 89.7 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 88.3% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7 |
| Reasoning (low) | – | 75.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 75.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2 |
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview
Claude Opus 4.6 is the flagship large language model from Anthropic, released on 2026-02-05 for advanced reasoning, complex coding, and enterprise agent workflows. It supports text and image inputs via API, offers a 200K-token standard context window with a 1M-token beta option, and enables outputs up to 128K tokens, with adaptive reasoning and context compaction for sustained tasks.
As of 2026-02-17, Anthropic also released Claude Sonnet 4.6, extending the 1M-token context window to a broader tier. Opus remains positioned for maximum depth and benchmark performance, while Sonnet 4.6 brings long-context capability to more cost- and latency-sensitive production use cases.
Muse Spark 1.2 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released as a coding-focused update to Muse Spark 1.1. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents and returns text, with a context window of roughly one million tokens that allows whole repositories, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request. The model thinks before answering, and the amount of reasoning effort it spends is configurable per request. Alongside its visual and document understanding, it supports structured output and parallel function calling, and it is designed to operate either as a planning agent that delegates work or as a subagent executing tasks in parallel.
Training for version 1.2 scaled up compute on coding tasks and widened the diversity of training environments, concentrating on long-horizon work such as whole-repository generation, large end-to-end projects, and automated research. Part of the training data was self-generated, with Muse Spark 1.1 producing coding environments and instruction-following templates and grading candidate solutions against them. The model was co-trained with the Muse Code terminal agent, incorporating rejection-sampled harness trajectories and that toolset. Meta reports 82.9 percent on Terminal-Bench 2.1, an improvement of 6.7 points over Muse Spark 1.1. Multimodal use cases documented for the family include visual-to-code generation and detailed image and video captioning.
Frequently Asked Questions
Claude Opus 4.6 has not yet been evaluated on Roboflow's current Vision Evals, so this comparison shows specs, licensing, and pricing rather than benchmark scores.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for open prompts and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.