Roboflow

Gemma 4 12B vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare Gemma 4 12B and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side.

Compare Gemma 4 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.

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 12B vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 23, 2026

PropertyGemma 4 12BMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2026Aug 2026
Context Window—1.0M
Parameters12BUnknown
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Commercial usefree for commercial usecommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1MNo published price$1.25
Output $/1MNo published price$4.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningSupportedDemo
OCRSupportedDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringSupportedDemo
Chart Question AnsweringNot listedSupported
ClassificationNot listedDemo
Document Question AnsweringNot listedSupported
Image TaggingNot listedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationNot listedSupported
object-detectionNot listedDemo
Model Features
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Foundation VisionNot listedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesNot listedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
OverallNot evaluated
73.8%
Avg cost / sample–$0.0083
Avg speed / sample–11.51s
By task
Object Detection (low)–
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
Object Detection (high)–
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)–
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
Counting (high)–
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)–
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
Identification (high)–
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)–
68.7%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
OCR (high)–
68.6%
$0.014
by category
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Reasoning (low)–
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)–
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

Gemma 4 12B vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

Gemma 4 12B

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 Spark 1.2

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.