Roboflow

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and Classification.

Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Spark 1.2 live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 76.6% to 43.2%.

Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 63.6% (#42 of 53) against 80.5% (#10 of 53) for Muse Spark 1.2.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.0072 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (7.8s vs 27.8s per sample).

Gemma 4 26B A4BMuse Spark 1.2

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated September 5, 2026Pricing updated September 20, 2026

PropertyGemma 4 26B A4BMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Aug 2026
Context Window256K1.0M
Parameters25.2B
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.090$1.25
Output $/1M$0.300$4.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
63.6%
80.5%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1661.8%FP863.6%AWQ-INT460.0%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0019$0.0072
Avg speed / sample27.84s7.81s
By task
Object Detection (low)
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
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)
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
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)
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
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)
88.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2
$0
93.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.9 to 94.1
$0.0079
OCR (high)
92.9%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 93.6
$0.014
Data Extraction (low)
76.6%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3
$0
89.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 89.7
$0.0034
Data Extraction (high)
88.3%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0047
Reasoning (low)
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
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 26B A4B vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Gemma 4 26B A4B is the Mixture-of-Experts variant in Google's Gemma 4 family, with 25.2B total parameters but only 3.8B active per token. Built from the same Gemini 3 research as the 31B dense sibling and released as open weights under the Apache 2.0 license, it supports a 256K token context window with text and image input and configurable thinking mode. The "A4B" in the name refers to its approximately 4B active parameters. The MoE design makes it significantly faster at inference than the dense 31B, running nearly as fast as a 4B-parameter model while delivering roughly 97% of the dense model's quality.

For vision tasks, the 26B A4B shares the same multimodal capabilities as the 31B image understanding with variable aspect ratios and resolutions, and structured bounding box output for UI element detection. The tradeoff versus the 31B dense model is a small quality reduction in exchange for much faster inference and lower hardware requirements, fitting in 18GB of VRAM at 4-bit quantization. It ranked #6 among open models on the Arena AI text leaderboard at launch.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.2 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 80.5% (#10 of 53) against 63.6% (#42 of 53) for Gemma 4 26B A4B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark at low effort, Muse Spark 1.2 leads with 76.6% against 43.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0019 per sample against $0.0072. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Muse Spark 1.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s per inference against 27.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

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.