Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.3
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and Muse Spark 1.3 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 1.3 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 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.3 on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.3 leads 73.3% to 42.4%.
Overall, Gemini 2.5 Pro averages 66.0% (#34 of 52) against 79.8% (#10 of 52) for Muse Spark 1.3.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0050 vs $0.0075 per sample) and faster (6.1s vs 23.1s per sample).
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.3 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 3, 2026
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $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 | 66.0% | 79.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0050 | $0.0075 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.11s | 23.14s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 33.7% | 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) | 52.7% | 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) | 93.8% | 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) | 88.8% | 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) | 84.5% | 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) | 42.4% | 73.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 62.3% | 73.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.3: Overview
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 1.3 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
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.3 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#10 of 52) against 66.0% (#34 of 52) 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 1.3 leads with 73.3% 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 $0.0075. Gemini 2.5 Pro is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.3 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 23.1s. 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.