Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and Muse Spark 1.3 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.7 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3 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 70.5% to 58.6%.
Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 85.2% (#2 of 52) against 79.8% (#10 of 52) for Muse Spark 1.3.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0031 vs $0.0075 per sample) and faster (16.5s vs 23.1s per sample).
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 3, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.750 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $3.75 | $4.25 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | 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 | 85.2% | 79.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0031 | $0.0075 |
| Avg speed / sample | 16.50s | 23.14s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 70.5% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5 | 58.6% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4 |
| Object Detection (high) | 74.3% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0 | 56.6% ±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3 |
| Counting (low) | 78.4% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7 | 74.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1 | 75.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 88.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.9 to 90.0 | 91.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.6 |
| OCR (high) | 89.0% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.3 to 89.9 | 86.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.2 to 90.4 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 96.2% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 96.9 | 88.7% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 95.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 95.9 | 87.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6 |
| Reasoning (low) | 80.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8 | 73.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8 | 73.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3: 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 1.3 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 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.2% (#2 of 52) against 79.8% (#10 of 52) 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 Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 70.5% against 58.6%. 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 $0.0031 per sample against $0.0075. Gemini 3.7 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 3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 16.5s per inference against 23.1s. 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.