Roboflow

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3

Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash and Muse Spark 1.3 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 1.3 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.3
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3 on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Identification, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 99.0% to 92.7%.

Overall, Gemini 3.6 Flash averages 77.1% (#11 of 63) against 73.9% (#16 of 63) for Muse Spark 1.3.

Gemini 3.6 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0033 vs $0.0084 per sample) and faster (10.4s vs 25.5s per sample).

Gemini 3.6 FlashMuse Spark 1.3

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 18, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.6 FlashMuse Spark 1.3
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750$1.25
Output $/1M$3.75$4.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Video ClassificationSupportedNot listed
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
77.1%
73.9%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.0084
Avg speed / sample10.43s25.50s
By task
Object Detection (low)
57.1%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.9 to 59.4
$0.0041
58.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
70.7%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.3 to 71.2
$0.0093
56.6%
±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3
$0.017
Counting (low)
80.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0034
74.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0049
Counting (high)
79.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 82.4
$0.0089
75.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7
$0.0094
Identification (low)
99.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0015
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0036
Identification (high)
100.0%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 100.0 to 100.0
$0.0033
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0063
OCR (low)
71.8%
$0.0030
70.4%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
68.3%
Transcription
89.4%
Structured JSON
82.9%
Text localization
42.5%
Single value
62.6%
Transcription
91.8%
Structured JSON
88.0%
Text localization
33.3%
OCR (high)
77.4%
$0.014
69.8%
$0.015
by category
Single value
68.7%
Transcription
90.3%
Structured JSON
89.3%
Text localization
62.1%
Single value
62.2%
Transcription
86.8%
Structured JSON
87.2%
Text localization
35.2%
Reasoning (low)
77.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.2 to 80.1
$0.0031
73.3%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.0064
Reasoning (high)
81.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 83.4
$0.0091
73.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.012

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3: 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 1.3

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, Gemini 3.6 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 77.1% (#11 of 63) against 73.9% (#16 of 63) for Muse Spark 1.3. 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 3.6 Flash leads with 99.0% against 92.7%. 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 $0.0033 per sample against $0.0084. Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 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 3.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.4s per inference against 25.5s. 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.