GPT-5.4 Mini vs Muse Spark 1.2
Compare GPT-5.4 Mini and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Object Detection, Classification, Image Captioning, and OCR.
Compare GPT-5.4 Mini 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GPT-5.4 Mini vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 60.1% to 16.1%.
Overall, GPT-5.4 Mini averages 63.5% (#23 of 25) against 80.4% (#5 of 25) for Muse Spark 1.2.
GPT-5.4 Mini is both cheaper ($0.0030 vs $0.0071 per sample) and faster (5.3s vs 7.8s per sample).
GPT-5.4 Mini vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 7, 2026
| Property | GPT-5.4 Mini | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 400K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.750 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $4.50 | $4.25 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 63.5% | 80.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0030 | $0.0071 |
| Avg speed / sample | 5.35s | 7.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 16.1% $0.0044 | 60.1% $0.0094 |
| Counting | 60.8% $0.0019 | 74.3% $0.0049 |
| Identification | 78.1% $0.0013 | 90.6% $0.0038 |
| OCR | 88.1% $0.0042 | 93.8% $0.0079 |
| Data Extraction | 82.5% $0.0014 | 88.7% $0.0033 |
| Reasoning (low) | 55.6% $0.0023 | 74.8% $0.0074 |
| Reasoning (high) | 62.9% $0.0081 | 76.2% $0.012 |
GPT-5.4 Mini vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview
GPT-5.4 mini is a fast, cost-efficient model developed by OpenAI and released on March 17, 2026, optimized for high-throughput workloads and subagent orchestration. It supports text and image inputs within a 400,000-token context window, making it ideal for processing extensive visual datasets and large codebases in a single request. Designed for low-latency production environments, the model integrates with key API features including function calling, web search, and tool-based computer use, allowing it to assist in automated workflows that require navigating digital interfaces.
Compared to the previous GPT-5 mini, this version runs more than twice as fast while approaching the performance levels of the flagship GPT-5.4 on reasoning and coding benchmarks. While the larger GPT-5.4 introduces native, state-of-the-art computer-use capabilities, GPT-5.4 mini provides a scalable alternative for interpreting screenshots and reasoning over dense UI layouts. For vision tasks on Playground, it excels at extracting structured information from visual documents and assisting in agentic tasks that involve real-time interpretation of software interfaces alongside text.
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 80.4% (#5 of 25) against 63.5% (#23 of 25) for GPT-5.4 Mini. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Muse Spark 1.2 leads with 60.1% against 16.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GPT-5.4 Mini is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0030 per sample against $0.0071. GPT-5.4 Mini is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $4.50 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.2 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-5.4 Mini is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.3s per inference against 7.8s. 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 open prompts and object detection in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.