Gemma 3 12B vs Muse Spark 1.2
Compare Gemma 3 12B and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Gemma 3 12B vs Muse Spark 1.2 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemma 3 12B vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 3, 2026
| Property | Gemma 3 12B | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2025 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 128K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 12B | |
| License | Custom | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.050 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $0.150 | $4.25 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| object-detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | Not evaluated | 80.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | – | $0.0072 |
| Avg speed / sample | – | 7.81s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | – | 59.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 60.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7 |
| Counting (low) | – | 76.6% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7 |
| Counting (high) | – | 75.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 |
| Identification (low) | – | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 87.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | – | 93.6% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.9 to 94.1 |
| OCR (high) | – | 92.9% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 93.6 |
| Data Extraction (low) | – | 89.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 89.7 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 88.3% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7 |
| Reasoning (low) | – | 75.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 75.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2 |
Gemma 3 12B vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview
Gemma 3 12B, announced by Google DeepMind on March 12, 2025, is part of the open-weight Gemma 3 family, designed to provide a balance between capability and accessibility. With around 12 billion parameters, it supports multimodal input (text + images) and outputs text, making it useful for reasoning, summarization, Q&A, and visual understanding tasks. The model supports an input context of 128,000 tokens and typically generates up to ~8,000 tokens in output.
The 12B variant is instruction-tuned (“Gemma-3-12B-IT”) and optimized for multilingual use across more than 140 languages. It can run on a single GPU or TPU, offering a lighter compute footprint than very large proprietary models, while still achieving strong performance in reasoning benchmarks. Quantized and lower-precision variants are available to improve efficiency. Limitations include smaller output lengths relative to input capacity, scaling hardware needs at larger sizes, and performance below massive proprietary models on the most complex multimodal or reasoning-heavy tasks.
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
Gemma 3 12B has not yet been evaluated on Roboflow's current Vision Evals, so this comparison shows specs, licensing, and pricing rather than benchmark scores.
Gemma 3 12B is released under Custom, while Muse Spark 1.2 uses Proprietary. Licensing often matters more than raw accuracy for commercial deployments, so check the terms against how you plan to ship.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.