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 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | |
| Output $/1M | $4.25 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| 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 / sample | 12.76s | 7.81s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.4% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.9 to 74.8 | 59.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2 |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.8% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.4 to 77.8 | 60.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7 |
| Counting (low) | 80.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 76.6% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7 |
| Counting (high) | 82.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8 | 75.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 95.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | 87.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 87.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 88.2 | 93.6% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.9 to 94.1 |
| OCR (high) | 87.2% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 87.8 | 92.9% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 93.6 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 89.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 89.7 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 88.3% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7 |
| Reasoning (low) | 83.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1 | 75.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 85.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1 | 75.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2 |
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview
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 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.