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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 3, 2026
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $0.400 | $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 |
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview
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 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
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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 image captioning and object detection in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.