Roboflow

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Object Detection, OCR, Open Prompt, and Classification.

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 25, 2026

PropertyGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2025Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$1.25
Output $/1M$0.400$4.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
OverallNot evaluated
73.8%
Avg cost / sample–$0.0083
Avg speed / sample–11.51s
By task
Object Detection (low)–
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
Object Detection (high)–
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)–
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
Counting (high)–
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)–
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
Identification (high)–
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)–
68.7%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
OCR (high)–
68.6%
$0.014
by category
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Reasoning (low)–
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)–
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, released for general availability on July 22, 2025, is the most cost-efficient model in the Gemini 2.5 family, designed for high-volume and latency-sensitive tasks. It is multimodal, supporting text, images, video, audio, and PDFs as inputs, with text as its primary output. The model handles up to 1 million input tokens and generates outputs up to 64K tokens, making it suitable for large-scale document or media processing at low cost. It is built on a Sparse Mixture-of-Experts architecture with native multimodal support, though exact parameter counts are undisclosed.

Flash-Lite offers the lowest usage cost among Gemini 2.5 models. It introduces developer controls for “thinking mode,” allowing fine-tuning of reasoning depth vs. efficiency. It also integrates native tools such as code execution, search grounding, and URL context. While strong on translation, classification, coding, and general multimodal reasoning, it lacks support for image or audio generation in its stable release and is less capable than Gemini 2.5 Flash or Pro on complex reasoning-heavy workflows.

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.