Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR, Image Captioning, Object Detection, Open Prompt, and Classification.

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol 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
OpenAIGPT-5.6 Sol
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Identification, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 90.6% to 81.3%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Sol averages 76.9% (#9 of 25) against 80.4% (#5 of 25) for Muse Spark 1.2.

Muse Spark 1.2 is both cheaper ($0.0071 vs $0.025 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 11.7s per sample).

GPT-5.6 SolMuse Spark 1.2

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 7, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.6 SolMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.5M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$1.25
Output $/1M$30.00$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
76.9%
80.4%
Avg cost / sample$0.025$0.0071
Avg speed / sample11.72s7.78s
By task
Object Detection
68.2%
$0.045
60.1%
$0.0094
Counting
73.0%
$0.013
74.3%
$0.0049
Identification
81.3%
$0.0070
90.6%
$0.0038
OCR
90.7%
$0.032
93.8%
$0.0079
Data Extraction
82.5%
$0.0085
88.7%
$0.0033
Reasoning (low)
65.6%
$0.011
74.8%
$0.0074
Reasoning (high)
72.2%
$0.016
76.2%
$0.012

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

GPT-5.6 Sol

GPT-5.6 Sol is the flagship model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes Terra (a balanced everyday-work tier) and Luna (a fast, cost-efficient tier). Sol is designed for demanding reasoning, long-horizon agentic workflows, software engineering, computer use, scientific research, and cybersecurity tasks. It introduces two new capability modes: a "max" reasoning effort setting that allocates additional compute time for difficult problems, and an "ultra" mode that coordinates multiple subagents in parallel to accelerate complex, multi-step work. The model supports native multimodal input, allowing it to process screenshots, diagrams, charts, documents, and photographs alongside text. A reported context window of approximately 1.5 million tokens enables processing of large codebases, lengthy research documents, and extended agentic sessions.

GPT-5.6 Sol was announced on June 26, 2026, initially in a limited preview for trusted partners, and reached general availability on July 9, 2026. On the Agents' Last Exam benchmark, which evaluates long-running professional workflows across 55 fields, Sol scores 53.6. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, which tests command-line agentic coding workflows, Sol Ultra achieves 91.9%. The model also demonstrates gains in life sciences evaluations, including long-horizon genomics and quantitative biology analyses. OpenAI paired the release with its most extensive safety evaluation to date, combining human red teaming with large-scale automated testing, and classified Sol as High capability in both cybersecurity and biological risk under its Preparedness Framework, though it does not cross the Critical threshold in either category.

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 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 80.4% (#5 of 25) against 76.9% (#9 of 25) for GPT-5.6 Sol. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Identification benchmark, Muse Spark 1.2 leads with 90.6% against 81.3%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0071 per sample against $0.025. GPT-5.6 Sol is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $30.00 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.

Muse Spark 1.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s per inference against 11.7s. 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 OCR and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.