Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Wonder
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash and Muse Wonder side-by-side.
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Wonder live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals
Muse Wonder scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Wonder leads 65.1% to 57.1%.
Overall, Gemini 3.6 Flash averages 77.1% (#10 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0033 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (10.4s vs 11.7s per sample).
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 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 | $0.750 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $3.75 | $20.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Supported |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Supported |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Supported |
| Video Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| 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 | 77.1% | 78.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0033 | $0.034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 10.43s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 57.1% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.9 to 59.4 | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 70.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.3 to 71.2 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 80.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 82.4 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 99.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 100.0% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 100.0 to 100.0 | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 71.8% | 74.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 77.4% | 76.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 77.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.2 to 80.1 | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 83.4 | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Wonder: Overview
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 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 77.1% (#10 of 62) for Gemini 3.6 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Muse Wonder leads with 65.1% against 57.1%. 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 $0.034. Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 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 3.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.4s per inference against 11.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.