Roboflow

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1

Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash and Muse Spark 1.1 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Classification, Image Captioning, OCR, and Object Detection.

Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1 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 3.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.1
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1 on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Identification, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 96.9% to 87.5%.

Overall, Gemini 3.6 Flash averages 83.1% (#5 of 30) against 79.3% (#7 of 30) for Muse Spark 1.1.

Gemini 3.6 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0032 vs $0.0069 per sample) and faster (4.7s vs 11.4s per sample).

Gemini 3.6 FlashMuse Spark 1.1

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 18, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.6 FlashMuse Spark 1.1
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750$1.25
Output $/1M$3.75$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
Video Classification
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%
79.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0032$0.0069
Avg speed / sample4.73s11.40s
By task
Object Detection
56.0%
$0.0041
58.4%
$0.010
Counting
82.4%
$0.0032
75.7%
$0.0043
Identification
96.9%
$0.0015
87.5%
$0.0032
OCR
88.4%
$0.0025
92.5%
$0.0063
Data Extraction
94.8%
$0.0015
86.6%
$0.0031
Reasoning (low)
80.1%
$0.0031
74.8%
$0.0065
Reasoning (high)
80.1%
$0.0085
76.2%
$0.013

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1: Overview

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Gemini 3.6 Flash is a multimodal language model from Google DeepMind, positioned as the workhorse tier in the Gemini 3.x family. It accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs with a 1 million token context window and produces up to 64,000 output tokens. The model builds directly on Gemini 3.5 Flash, incorporating developer and customer feedback to improve token efficiency, coding quality, and knowledge work performance. According to the Artificial Analysis Index, it consumes 17% fewer output tokens than its predecessor, and on some benchmarks such as DeepSWE, token reduction reaches up to 65%. It supports function calling, structured output, search as a tool, and code execution, and includes computer use as a built-in capability in the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise.

On coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on DeepSWE versus 37% for 3.5 Flash, and 63.9% on MLE Bench versus 49.7%. Computer use performance on OSWorld-Verified improves from 78.4% to 83%, and knowledge work scores on GDPval-AA v2 rise from 1349 to 1421. The model carries a knowledge cutoff of March 2026 and ships with enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards covering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber offense domains, with training to minimize refusals for beneficial uses. It is a proprietary, closed-weights model available in preview through the Gemini API via Google AI Studio, Android Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise, and the Gemini app.

Muse Spark 1.1

Muse Spark 1.1 is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released on July 9, 2026, as a significant upgrade to the original Muse Spark. The model accepts text, image, video, PDF, and audio as input and produces text output. It operates with a 1-million-token context window (1,048,576 tokens per the Meta Model API documentation) and is designed specifically for agentic tasks that require planning, tool use, computer use, and multi-agent orchestration. The model runs in a "Thinking" mode, where adjustable reasoning effort is applied before generating a response. It can function both as a main agent gathering context, forming plans, and delegating to parallel subagents and as a subagent that adheres to assigned tasks and escalates when needed. It is trained to decide autonomously when to write automation scripts versus interact directly with a user interface.

Muse Spark 1.1 supports a range of multimodal capabilities including visual perception, image and video captioning, visual-to-code generation, and document analysis. The model was evaluated under Meta's Advanced AI Scaling Framework across frontier risk categories including chemical and biological threats, cybersecurity, and loss-of-control scenarios. Parameter count, architecture details, and training data composition are not publicly disclosed. The model is proprietary and closed-weight, accessible to consumers through the Meta AI app and to developers via the Meta Model API, which launched in public preview alongside this release.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.6 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.1% (#5 of 30) against 79.3% (#7 of 30) for Muse Spark 1.1. 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 3.6 Flash leads with 96.9% against 87.5%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0032 per sample against $0.0069. Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.1 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 3.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.7s per inference against 11.4s. 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 classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.