Roboflow

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Muse Wonder

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash and Muse Wonder side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Object Detection.

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.5 Flash
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Wonder
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Identification, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 99.0% to 92.7%.

Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash averages 81.8% (#4 of 63) against 78.8% (#9 of 63) for Muse Wonder.

Gemini 3.5 Flash is both cheaper ($0.012 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (11.5s vs 11.7s per sample).

Gemini 3.5 FlashMuse Wonder

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 19, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.5 FlashMuse Wonder
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMay 2026Oct 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknownundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.50$4.00
Output $/1M$9.00$20.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
81.8%
78.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.012$0.034
Avg speed / sample11.52s11.68s
By task
Object Detection (low)
70.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.7 to 72.6
$0.016
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
Object Detection (high)
69.8%
±1.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.5 to 71.1
$0.021
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
Counting (low)
80.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 81.1
$0.0075
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
Counting (high)
82.4%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 82.4
$0.017
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
Identification (low)
99.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0040
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
Identification (high)
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0068
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
OCR (low)
76.7%
$0.013
74.3%
$0.034
by category
Single value
71.7%
Transcription
90.0%
Structured JSON
86.8%
Text localization
56.2%
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
OCR (high)
75.5%
$0.031
76.0%
$0.059
by category
Single value
69.6%
Transcription
85.4%
Structured JSON
88.1%
Text localization
53.3%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Reasoning (low)
82.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 84.1
$0.0082
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
Reasoning (high)
81.0%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 82.8
$0.018
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Muse Wonder: Overview

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Gemini 3.5 Flash is a multimodal language model developed by Google DeepMind and released at Google I/O 2026. It is built on the Gemini 3 Flash reasoning foundation and introduces configurable thinking levels (minimal, low, medium, and high) that allow developers to tune the depth of internal reasoning before a response is generated. The model accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs and produces text output, with a 1 million token context window and up to 65,000 output tokens per request. It is natively multimodal, processing visual inputs alongside text to support tasks such as image captioning, classification, optical character recognition, object detection, and visual grounding, where the model references specific regions within an image or video frame.

Its vision capabilities extend to interpreting UI screenshots, diagrams, charts, and real-world scenes, as well as understanding video and live frame sequences for activity and scene recognition. The model supports combined tool use, including Google Search, URL context, code execution, and custom functions, within a single request, and it uses reasoning context from previous turns when thought signatures are present in the conversation history, enabling persistent multi-turn reasoning chains. Gemini 3.5 Flash carries a knowledge cutoff of January 2026 and is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, and the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform.

Muse Wonder

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, Gemini 3.5 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 81.8% (#4 of 63) against 78.8% (#9 of 63) for Muse Wonder. 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 at low effort, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads with 99.0% against 92.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.5 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.012 per sample against $0.034. Gemini 3.5 Flash is priced at $1.50 per 1M input tokens and $9.00 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 3.5 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.5s 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 open prompts and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.