Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.2
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.1 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.1 Pro scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Identification, where Gemini 3.1 Pro leads 100.0% to 90.6%.
Overall, Gemini 3.1 Pro averages 83.1% (#3 of 25) against 80.4% (#5 of 25) for Muse Spark 1.2.
Muse Spark 1.2 is both cheaper ($0.0071 vs $0.0093 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 7.8s per sample).
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 7, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $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 | 83.1% | 80.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0093 | $0.0071 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.81s | 7.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 67.4% $0.010 | 60.1% $0.0094 |
| Counting | 71.6% $0.0071 | 74.3% $0.0049 |
| Identification | 100.0% $0.0070 | 90.6% $0.0038 |
| OCR | 92.6% $0.0066 | 93.8% $0.0079 |
| Data Extraction | 94.8% $0.0063 | 88.7% $0.0033 |
| Reasoning (low) | 72.2% $0.012 | 74.8% $0.0074 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% $0.021 | 76.2% $0.012 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview
Gemini 3.1 Pro is a proprietary multimodal model from Google’s Gemini 3 series, released in early 2026 and designed for advanced reasoning across large multimodal datasets. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and documents, supporting up to a 1-million-token input context with up to 64k output tokens. Compared with Gemini 3 Pro, it improves long-context synthesis and multi-step reasoning, enabling more reliable analysis of large documents, datasets, and software codebases.
The model also advances visual understanding and grounding, allowing it to interpret UI screenshots, diagrams, and real-world scenes while referencing specific regions within images or video. These capabilities make Gemini 3.1 Pro well suited for multimodal workflows involving document processing, interface analysis, robotics research, and complex visual reasoning.
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, Gemini 3.1 Pro performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Gemini 3.1 Pro averages 83.1% (#3 of 25) against 80.4% (#5 of 25) for Muse Spark 1.2. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Identification benchmark, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads with 100.0% against 90.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0071 per sample against $0.0093. Gemini 3.1 Pro is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 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.
Muse Spark 1.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.