Gemini 3 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2
Compare Gemini 3 Flash and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Classification, Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 3 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.
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 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 60.1% to 38.6%.
Overall, Gemini 3 Flash averages 74.9% (#10 of 25) against 80.4% (#5 of 25) for Muse Spark 1.2.
Gemini 3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0021 vs $0.0071 per sample) and faster (4.1s vs 7.8s per sample).
Gemini 3 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 7, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3 Flash | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Dec 2025 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.500 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $3.00 | $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 | 74.9% | 80.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0021 | $0.0071 |
| Avg speed / sample | 4.10s | 7.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 38.6% $0.0031 | 60.1% $0.0094 |
| Counting | 67.6% $0.0012 | 74.3% $0.0049 |
| Identification | 93.8% $0.0009 | 90.6% $0.0038 |
| OCR | 87.6% $0.0024 | 93.8% $0.0079 |
| Data Extraction | 96.9% $0.0008 | 88.7% $0.0033 |
| Reasoning (low) | 64.9% $0.0020 | 74.8% $0.0074 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.2% $0.0040 | 76.2% $0.012 |
Gemini 3 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview
Gemini 3 Flash is a proprietary multimodal large language model developed by Google through Google DeepMind, designed to deliver fast, cost-efficient reasoning across real-time products and developer workflows. Released in December 2025, it is the Flash-tier variant of the Gemini 3 family, balancing low latency with reasoning quality approaching Pro models.
The model supports text, images, audio, and video, with an exceptionally large context window of roughly one million input tokens and outputs up to ~65k tokens. It emphasizes rapid responses for coding, summarization, analysis, and agentic tasks, and exposes configurable “thinking levels” via API to trade speed for deeper reasoning. Today, Gemini 3 Flash positions itself as a high-throughput, production-ready model, serving as the default in the Gemini app and Google Search’s AI Mode, optimized for scalable, interactive AI applications.
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, Muse Spark 1.2 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 80.4% (#5 of 25) against 74.9% (#10 of 25) for Gemini 3 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, Muse Spark 1.2 leads with 60.1% against 38.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0021 per sample against $0.0071. Gemini 3 Flash is priced at $0.50 per 1M input tokens and $3.00 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.
Gemini 3 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.1s per inference against 7.8s. 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 object detection and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.