Gemma 4 12B vs Muse Ember
Muse Ember: 76.6% average across five Vision Evals tasks (#16 of 67 models). We have not run Gemma 4 12B through Roboflow's Vision Evals, so there is no head-to-head score.
Compare Gemma 4 12B 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 4 12B vs Muse Ember Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Gemma 4 12B | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Nov 2026 |
| Context Window | — | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 12B | Unknown |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | free for commercial use | 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 | ||
| Chart Question Answering | Not listed | Supported |
| Classification | Not listed | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Not listed | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Not listed | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Not listed | Supported |
| Object Detection | Not listed | Supported |
Both support 4 more tasks | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Not listed | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Not listed | Supported |
Both support 1 more feature | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | Not 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 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 64.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5 |
| Counting (low) | – | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Counting (high) | – | 79.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | – | 91.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | – | 90.6% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | – | 69.5% |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | – | 70.5% |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | – | 78.2% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 81.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4 |
Gemma 4 12B vs Muse Ember: Overview
Gemma 4 12B is an open-weight multimodal model from Google in the Gemma 4 family. It is intended for text and image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, OCR, captioning, and document understanding, with a smaller parameter footprint than the larger Gemma 4 variants.
This entry is connected to Roboflow Playground vision evals for comparison. No runnable Playground workflow is configured yet, so the model page is used for discovery and benchmark context rather than direct hosted inference.
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.