Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Wonder
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Muse Wonder 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 Wonder 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals
Muse Wonder scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 47.7%.
Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 54.1% (#49 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.
Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.034 per sample), while Muse Wonder is faster (11.7s vs 27.8s per sample).
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 25.2B | undisclosed |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | free for commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.090 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.300 | $20.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 54.1% 4/5 tasks | 78.8% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0019 | $0.034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 27.84s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 44.2% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8 | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 43.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0 | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | – | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 81.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4 | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | – | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | – | 74.3% |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | – | 76.0% |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 47.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0 | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Wonder: Overview
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 Wonder is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on October 12, 2026 as the first step past the Muse Spark line on Meta's scaling ladder. It launched together with Muse Wonder Full, a larger configuration that is available only through Muse Code subscription plans, while Muse Wonder itself is served through the Meta Model API under the identifier muse-wonder-1.0. The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents as input and returns text, with a context window of 1,048,576 tokens and graded reasoning effort settings. Meta trained both models at its Prometheus data center on larger base models than Muse Spark 1.3, and attributes their gains on unfamiliar tasks to post-training that transfers more effectively from a stronger base.
Meta positions Muse Wonder for long-running personal and professional agents: it plans multi-step work, delegates to sub-agents, calls tools in parallel, recovers from errors, and operates browsers and desktop or mobile applications. Two training objectives shape this behaviour. Active Memory carries goals, constraints, and earlier decisions across conversations and retrieves the details relevant to the current step, and Active Focus keeps the model trying alternative approaches when a task gets difficult while asking for clarification before important actions. Visual inputs such as screenshots, charts, and video feed the same reasoning loop, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for grounding queries. Meta's model card lists visual and spatial reasoning, especially 3D tasks, as a known limitation and recommends validating performance for applications that depend on precise spatial understanding.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 54.1% (#49 of 62) 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 Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Wonder leads with 85.2% against 47.7%. 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 $0.034. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Muse Wonder is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.7s 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.