Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Wonder
Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash and Muse Wonder side-by-side.
Compare Gemini 3.8 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 3.8 Flash vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.8 Flash scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Identification, where Gemini 3.8 Flash leads 97.9% to 92.7%.
Overall, Gemini 3.8 Flash averages 79.8% (#6 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.
Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0041 vs $0.034 per sample), while Muse Wonder is faster (11.7s vs 12.8s per sample).
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 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 |
| 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 | 79.8% | 78.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0041 | $0.034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 12.76s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 68.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0 | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 74.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.4 to 75.6 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 78.8% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1 | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 97.9% ±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) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 72.8% | 74.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 78.7% | 76.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 81.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5 | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 84.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4 | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Wonder: Overview
Gemini 3.8 Flash is a natively multimodal reasoning model in Google's Gemini 3 series, positioned as the speed and cost oriented Flash tier while targeting long-horizon software engineering, autonomous agents, and enterprise workflows. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents in a single request and returns text, with an input limit of 1,048,576 tokens and an output limit of 65,536 tokens. Thinking is configurable at low, medium, and high levels, and the model supports function calling, code execution, structured outputs, context caching, search and Maps grounding, file search, and computer use in preview. Image generation, audio generation, and the Live API are not supported.
On vision oriented evaluations the model reports 86.2% on CharXiv Reasoning for chart and figure synthesis and 87.8% on LVBench for long video understanding in agentic mode, alongside 90.8% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and 61.6% on SWE-Bench Pro for coding. Following Gemini API conventions, it can localize objects by emitting bounding boxes as [ymin, xmin, ymax, xmax] integers normalized to a 0 to 1000 range, which supports prompt driven detection and grounding in addition to captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. The knowledge cutoff is March 2026, though coverage in some domains reflects the January 2025 cutoff shared across the Gemini 3 family.
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, Gemini 3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#6 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder. 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 3.8 Flash leads with 97.9% against 92.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0041 per sample against $0.034. Gemini 3.8 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.
Muse Wonder is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.7s per inference against 12.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.