Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2

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

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

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

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 74.3% to 59.0%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 80.5% (#13 of 60) for Muse Spark 1.2.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper ($0.0065 vs $0.0072 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (7.8s vs 10.8s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5.5Muse Spark 1.2

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated September 28, 2026Pricing updated September 28, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 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
83.8%
80.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0065$0.0072
Avg speed / sample10.78s7.81s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.3%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3
$0.0098
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3
$0.014
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0042
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
Counting (high)
82.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8
$0.0053
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0029
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.0033
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)
90.6%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.0 to 91.7
$0.0079
93.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.9 to 94.1
$0.0079
OCR (high)
90.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 92.3
$0.011
92.9%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 93.6
$0.014
Data Extraction (low)
90.7%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.7 to 92.8
$0.0033
89.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 89.7
$0.0034
Data Extraction (high)
93.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0036
88.3%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0047
Reasoning (low)
76.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8
$0.0049
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)
83.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4
$0.0061
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the second release in the Claude 5.5 family, following Claude Opus 5.5. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, operating with a 1M token context window and a maximum output of 128K tokens per request. The model uses adaptive thinking by default, allocating variable reasoning effort per request rather than exposing a manual extended thinking toggle, and its training data cutoff is June 2026. Anthropic positions it as a faster, lower cost complement to Opus 5.5 for well scoped everyday tasks, bug fixing, and producing documents, slides, and spreadsheets.

On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, Sonnet 5.5 scores 61.6% on Chartography, a chart recognition test, compared with 15.6% for Claude Sonnet 5, and 80.1% on OSWorld 2.1, a computer use benchmark measuring screenshot driven control of a desktop environment, compared with 57.0% for Sonnet 5. It reports 70.6% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 for agentic coding. Anthropic describes it as the first Sonnet model able to complete Pokemon Red from screenshots alone, and it generates output more than 30% faster than Sonnet 5 while using fewer tokens for equivalent work.

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 Sonnet 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 80.5% (#13 of 60) 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 Sonnet 5.5 leads with 74.3% against 59.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0065 per sample against $0.0072. 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 10.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.