Gemini 4 Carbon vs Muse Ember
Gemini 4 Carbon and Muse Ember score 89.4% vs 76.6% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#1 and #17 of 68 models), so Gemini 4 Carbon leads overall.
- Gemini 4 Carbon wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (84.5% vs 63.8%).
- Muse Ember is about 1/7 of the cost: $0.0009 vs $0.0061 overall average cost per sample.
- Muse Ember is faster: 6.1s vs 8.7s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Gemini 4 Carbon vs Muse Ember 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.
Gemini 4 Carbon vs Muse Ember on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 4 Carbon vs Muse Ember Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Gemini 4 Carbon | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Nov 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 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 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | No published price | $0.500 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Supported |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 89.4% | 76.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0061 | $0.0009 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.71s | 6.08s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 84.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.8 | 63.8% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.3 to 64.3 |
| Object Detection (high) | 85.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.6 to 86.2 | 64.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5 |
| Counting (low) | 90.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Counting (high) | 86.9% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.8 to 89.2 | 79.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 91.7% ±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% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | 87.2% | 69.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 89.7% | 70.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 91.4% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 93.4 | 78.2% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.3% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.0 to 92.7 | 81.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4 |
Gemini 4 Carbon vs Muse Ember: Overview
Gemini 4 Carbon is a multimodal model from Google. It builds on Gemini 4 Argon and supports reasoning over text and images. Google describes improvements in coding and long-running tasks. Model weights are not publicly released.
Muse Ember is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on November 9, 2026. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents and returns text. The Meta Model API serves it as muse-ember-1.0, with a 1,048,576-token context window and up to 524,288 output tokens. Reasoning effort is adjustable from minimal to max.
Meta positions Ember for repeated tasks within larger agent workflows: tool calls, routing, coding subtasks, and processing collections of images and documents. It can caption or sort photos and extract fields from records while a larger Muse model handles planning. Meta recommends Spark or Wonder for harder single-shot coding and knowledge-heavy problems. Ember is available as a hosted model; its weights are not publicly released.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Carbon performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 89.4% (#1 of 68) against 76.6% (#17 of 68) for Muse Ember. 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 Carbon leads with 84.5% against 63.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Muse Ember is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 per sample against $0.0061. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Muse Ember is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.1s per inference against 8.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.