Roboflow

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side.

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 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 Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 74.4% to 59.0%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 85.5% (#3 of 57) against 80.5% (#12 of 57) for Muse Spark 1.2.

Muse Spark 1.2 is both cheaper ($0.0072 vs $0.014 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 12.8s per sample).

Claude Opus 5.5Muse Spark 1.2

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5.5Muse Spark 1.2
OrganizationAnthropicMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25
Output $/1M$4.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
85.5%
80.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.014$0.0072
Avg speed / sample12.76s7.81s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.9 to 74.8
$0.022
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.4 to 77.8
$0.030
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)
80.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0081
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
Counting (high)
82.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8
$0.0098
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0058
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
Identification (high)
95.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.0067
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)
87.8%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 88.2
$0.017
93.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.9 to 94.1
$0.0079
OCR (high)
87.2%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 87.8
$0.024
92.9%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 93.6
$0.014
Data Extraction (low)
93.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0066
89.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 89.7
$0.0034
Data Extraction (high)
93.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0075
88.3%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0047
Reasoning (low)
83.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1
$0.0090
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)
85.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1
$0.011
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.

On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.

Muse Spark 1.2

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

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#3 of 57) against 80.5% (#12 of 57) for Muse Spark 1.2. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 74.4% against 59.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0072 per sample against $0.014. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Muse Spark 1.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s per inference against 12.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.