Roboflow

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.2

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

Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 Pro
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 74.8% to 42.4%.

Overall, Gemini 2.5 Pro averages 66.0% (#19 of 25) against 80.4% (#5 of 25) for Muse Spark 1.2.

Gemini 2.5 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0050 vs $0.0071 per sample) and faster (6.1s vs 7.8s per sample).

Gemini 2.5 ProMuse Spark 1.2

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 7, 2026

PropertyGemini 2.5 ProMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2025Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$1.25
Output $/1M$10.00$4.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
66.0%
80.4%
Avg cost / sample$0.0050$0.0071
Avg speed / sample6.11s7.78s
By task
Object Detection
33.7%
$0.010
60.1%
$0.0094
Counting
52.7%
$0.0012
74.3%
$0.0049
Identification
93.8%
$0.0012
90.6%
$0.0038
OCR
88.8%
$0.0047
93.8%
$0.0079
Data Extraction
84.5%
$0.0013
88.7%
$0.0033
Reasoning (low)
42.4%
$0.0013
74.8%
$0.0074
Reasoning (high)
62.3%
$0.011
76.2%
$0.012

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.

Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.

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, Muse Spark 1.2 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 80.4% (#5 of 25) against 66.0% (#19 of 25) for Gemini 2.5 Pro. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Spark 1.2 leads with 74.8% against 42.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0050 per sample against $0.0071. Gemini 2.5 Pro is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.2 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.1s per inference against 7.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.