Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Compare image classification labels and confidence scores side-by-side.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 69.4% to 60.2%.
Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 80.4% (#6 of 30) for Muse Spark 1.2.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper ($0.0016 vs $0.0071 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (7.8s vs 10.0s per sample).
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.375 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $1.88 | $4.25 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 84.6% | 80.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0016 | $0.0071 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.97s | 7.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 69.4% $0.0024 | 60.2% $0.0094 |
| Counting | 77.0% $0.0013 | 74.3% $0.0049 |
| Identification | 96.9% $0.0007 | 90.6% $0.0038 |
| OCR | 86.9% $0.0014 | 93.8% $0.0079 |
| Data Extraction | 94.8% $0.0007 | 88.7% $0.0033 |
| Reasoning (low) | 82.8% $0.0011 | 74.8% $0.0074 |
| Reasoning (high) | 82.1% $0.0026 | 76.2% $0.012 |
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary multimodal model from Google, positioned in the Flash branch of the Gemini 3 series that trades some of the capacity of the larger Pro models for lower latency and lower cost per token. It accepts interleaved text and image input alongside other modalities handled by the Gemini family and returns text, and it continues the series pattern of exposing a configurable thinking budget so that reasoning effort can be scaled up for harder problems or reduced for high throughput extraction, routing and classification work. The model is announced roughly three weeks after Gemini 3.6 Flash, part of an unusually fast iteration cadence within the Flash line.
Google reports gains concentrated in agentic coding and front end generation, citing a WebDev Arena Elo of 1588 for this release compared with 1538 for the preceding Flash model, and describes it as producing more functional layouts and more feature complete applications in fewer prompts. Weights are not published and the architecture, parameter count and training corpus are undisclosed, consistent with prior Gemini releases. Visual capability follows the Flash lineage, covering image and document understanding, chart and diagram interpretation, text recognition in images, and general visual question answering.
Muse Spark 1.2 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released as a coding-focused update to Muse Spark 1.1. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents and returns text, with a context window of roughly one million tokens that allows whole repositories, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request. The model thinks before answering, and the amount of reasoning effort it spends is configurable per request. Alongside its visual and document understanding, it supports structured output and parallel function calling, and it is designed to operate either as a planning agent that delegates work or as a subagent executing tasks in parallel.
Training for version 1.2 scaled up compute on coding tasks and widened the diversity of training environments, concentrating on long-horizon work such as whole-repository generation, large end-to-end projects, and automated research. Part of the training data was self-generated, with Muse Spark 1.1 producing coding environments and instruction-following templates and grading candidate solutions against them. The model was co-trained with the Muse Code terminal agent, incorporating rejection-sampled harness trajectories and that toolset. Meta reports 82.9 percent on Terminal-Bench 2.1, an improvement of 6.7 points over Muse Spark 1.1. Multimodal use cases documented for the family include visual-to-code generation and detailed image and video captioning.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 80.4% (#6 of 30) for Muse Spark 1.2. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 69.4% against 60.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0016 per sample against $0.0071. Gemini 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.38 per 1M input tokens and $1.88 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.2 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.
Muse Spark 1.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s per inference against 10.0s. 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.