Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and Muse Spark 1.3 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, Image Captioning, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3 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 vs Muse Spark 1.3 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 3, 2026
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $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 | 79.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | – | $0.0075 |
| Avg speed / sample | – | 23.14s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | – | 58.6% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 56.6% ±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3 |
| Counting (low) | – | 74.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 |
| Counting (high) | – | 75.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | – | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | – | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | – | 91.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.6 |
| OCR (high) | – | 86.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.2 to 90.4 |
| Data Extraction (low) | – | 88.7% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 87.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6 |
| Reasoning (low) | – | 73.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 73.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Flash, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s production-ready, efficiency-focused model in the Gemini 2.5 family. It is multimodal, accepting text, images, video, and audio as inputs, with text as the primary output format. The model supports 1 million input tokens and up to 65K output tokens, enabling it to process very large contexts such as books, long video transcripts, or extensive datasets. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Designed as a price-performance leader, Gemini 2.5 Flash balances speed and reasoning power, making it suitable for everyday enterprise and developer use cases without the higher latency and cost of Pro models. It supports advanced workflows like function calling, code execution, search grounding, URL context ingestion, and structured outputs. While efficient and scalable, output length is still limited compared to its input capacity, and multimodal outputs (e.g. image or audio generation) remain restricted to specialized or preview variants.
Muse Spark 1.3 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs and the fourth Muse Spark release in five months, arriving on September 2, 2026. It takes text, images, video, and document files as input and returns text, and it operates over a context window of 1,048,576 tokens. Meta trains the model for long-horizon agentic work, so it carries accumulated context and prior tool results forward across many turns, reconciles messy or conflicting inputs, and asks for clarification when a task is underspecified. Visual inputs such as screenshots and video clips feed a reasoning loop that runs against a real execution environment rather than a scripted sequence of steps.
The model exposes graded reasoning effort settings. An xhigh configuration is generally available at launch, while a max reasoning configuration aimed at harder reasoning and agentic problems arrives after further safety testing. Artificial Analysis measures Muse Spark 1.3 (max) at 62 on its Intelligence Index and the xhigh configuration at 61, with agentic tool-use evaluations driving most of the gain over Muse Spark 1.2; max reaches 52% on Tau3-Bench Banking by spending more turns and reasoning tokens than xhigh. Prior Muse Spark versions emit bounding box coordinates, transcriptions, and structured field extractions from images on Roboflow Vision Evals.
Frequently Asked Questions
Gemini 2.5 Flash 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 open prompts and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.