Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Muse Wonder
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and Muse Wonder 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 Wonder 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 Wonder on Vision Evals
Muse Wonder scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 72.2%.
Overall, Gemini 3.1 Pro averages 76.8% (#12 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is both cheaper ($0.010 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (8.4s vs 11.7s per sample).
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | undisclosed |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $20.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 76.8% | 78.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.010 | $0.034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.44s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 67.4% | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 71.6% | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | – | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 100.0% | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | – | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 72.6% | 74.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 73.1% | 76.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 72.2% | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Muse Wonder: 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 Wonder is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on October 12, 2026 as the first step past the Muse Spark line on Meta's scaling ladder. It launched together with Muse Wonder Full, a larger configuration that is available only through Muse Code subscription plans, while Muse Wonder itself is served through the Meta Model API under the identifier muse-wonder-1.0. The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents as input and returns text, with a context window of 1,048,576 tokens and graded reasoning effort settings. Meta trained both models at its Prometheus data center on larger base models than Muse Spark 1.3, and attributes their gains on unfamiliar tasks to post-training that transfers more effectively from a stronger base.
Meta positions Muse Wonder for long-running personal and professional agents: it plans multi-step work, delegates to sub-agents, calls tools in parallel, recovers from errors, and operates browsers and desktop or mobile applications. Two training objectives shape this behaviour. Active Memory carries goals, constraints, and earlier decisions across conversations and retrieves the details relevant to the current step, and Active Focus keeps the model trying alternative approaches when a task gets difficult while asking for clarification before important actions. Visual inputs such as screenshots, charts, and video feed the same reasoning loop, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for grounding queries. Meta's model card lists visual and spatial reasoning, especially 3D tasks, as a known limitation and recommends validating performance for applications that depend on precise spatial understanding.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 76.8% (#12 of 62) for Gemini 3.1 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 Wonder leads with 85.2% against 72.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.010 per sample against $0.034. Gemini 3.1 Pro is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 per 1M output; Muse Wonder is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.4s per inference against 11.7s. 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.