Gemini 4 Argon vs Muse Spark 1.3
Compare Gemini 4 Argon and Muse Spark 1.3 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Open Prompt.
Compare Gemini 4 Argon 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 4 Argon vs Muse Spark 1.3 on Vision Evals
Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 4 Argon leads 82.5% to 58.6%.
Overall, Gemini 4 Argon averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 73.9% (#16 of 63) for Muse Spark 1.3.
Gemini 4 Argon is both cheaper ($0.0058 vs $0.0084 per sample) and faster (13.4s vs 25.5s per sample).
Gemini 4 Argon vs Muse Spark 1.3 Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Gemini 4 Argon | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | No published price | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | No published price | $4.25 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| 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 | 87.5% | 73.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0058 | $0.0084 |
| Avg speed / sample | 13.40s | 25.50s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 82.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0 | 58.6% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4 |
| Object Detection (high) | 85.1% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5 | 56.6% ±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3 |
| Counting (low) | 86.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5 | 74.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 |
| Counting (high) | 90.5% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 | 75.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 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) | 85.7% | 70.4% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 88.0% | 69.8% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 89.4% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7 | 73.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 91.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0 | 73.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
Gemini 4 Argon vs Muse Spark 1.3: Overview
Gemini 4 Argon is Google DeepMind's frontier Gemini 4 model, built to sustain extended reasoning across long-horizon workflows in software engineering, enterprise knowledge work such as legal and finance, scientific analysis, and defensive cybersecurity. It accepts text, image, video, and document input and returns text, operating over a one million token context window. The model raises the maximum output length to one million tokens, compared with a 64K ceiling on earlier Gemini releases, so a single reasoning trajectory can run for hundreds of thousands of tokens before terminating.
On the visual side, Argon targets multimodal document comprehension, professional chart analysis, and retrieval of specific details from long recordings, reporting 91.7% on LVBench for long-video understanding and 71.6% on Chartography for chart reasoning. Google also reports 77.9% on DeepSWE v1.1, 51.3% on AutomationBench, 68% on CWE-bench v1, and first place on the Vals Index, which aggregates finance, coding, legal, and tax tasks. Following Gemini API conventions, it localizes 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 alongside captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. Google describes adversarial training and automated red teaming for indirect prompt injection resistance, plus chain-of-thought and action monitors that halt execution when behavior drifts outside user intent.
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 4 Argon performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 73.9% (#16 of 63) 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 4 Argon leads with 82.5% against 58.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 4 Argon is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0058 per sample against $0.0084. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 4 Argon is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 13.4s per inference against 25.5s. 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 captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.