Roboflow

Gemma 3 4B vs Muse Ember

Muse Ember: 76.6% average across five Vision Evals tasks (#16 of 67 models). We have not run Gemma 3 4B through Roboflow's Vision Evals, so there is no head-to-head score.

Compare Gemma 3 4B 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.

Gemma 3 4B vs Muse Ember Comparison Table

Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026

PropertyGemma 3 4BMuse Ember
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMar 2025Nov 2026
Context Window128K1.0M
Parameters4BUnknown
LicenseCustomProprietary
Commercial useSee license termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.050$0.100
Output $/1M$0.100$0.500
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoSupported
OCRDemoSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoSupported
Object DetectionNot listedSupported
Both support 6 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
OverallNot evaluated
76.6%
Avg cost / sample–$0.0009
Avg speed / sample–6.08s
By task
Object Detection (low)–
63.8%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.3 to 64.3
$0.0011
Object Detection (high)–
64.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5
$0.0017
Counting (low)–
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.0006
Counting (high)–
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0011
Identification (low)–
91.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0004
Identification (high)–
90.6%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0007
OCR (low)–
69.5%
$0.0010
by category
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
85.1%
Text localization
35.3%
OCR (high)–
70.5%
$0.0017
by category
Single value
63.0%
Transcription
90.2%
Structured JSON
87.2%
Text localization
35.9%
Reasoning (low)–
78.2%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5
$0.0006
Reasoning (high)–
81.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4
$0.0013

Gemma 3 4B vs Muse Ember: Overview

Gemma 3 4B

Gemma 3 4B, released on March 12, 2025, is the mid-sized member of Google DeepMind’s open-weight Gemma 3 family. With about 4 billion parameters, it is multimodal—supporting text and image inputs and generating text outputs. Like the larger Gemma 3 models, it features a 128,000-token input context window with an output capacity of ~8,192 tokens, enabling it to handle long documents and mixed text–image reasoning tasks.

The 4B variant is designed as a balance between efficiency and capability: it offers multilingual support across 140+ languages, strong summarization and reasoning performance, and compatibility with moderate hardware. Inference can run with ~6.4 GB VRAM in BF16, or significantly less in quantized 8-bit (~4.4 GB) or 4-bit (~3.4 GB) modes, making it accessible to developers outside large-scale infrastructure. While it lags behind the 12B and 27B versions on the most complex reasoning and multimodal benchmarks, its lower compute footprint makes it ideal for research, prototyping, and practical deployment where efficiency matters.

Muse Ember

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.