Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.3

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol and Muse Spark 1.3 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 1.3 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 1.3
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.3 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 68.4% to 58.6%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Sol averages 72.4% (#18 of 63) against 73.9% (#16 of 63) for Muse Spark 1.3.

Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper ($0.0084 vs $0.019 per sample), while GPT-5.6 Sol is faster (12.2s vs 25.5s per sample).

GPT-5.6 SolMuse Spark 1.3

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.3 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.6 SolMuse Spark 1.3
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.5M1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$4.00$1.25
Output $/1M$20.00$4.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
72.4%
73.9%
Avg cost / sample$0.019$0.0084
Avg speed / sample12.16s25.50s
By task
Object Detection (low)
68.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.9 to 69.3
$0.031
58.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
68.4%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.7 to 69.3
$0.071
56.6%
±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3
$0.017
Counting (low)
74.3%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 75.7
$0.0098
74.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0049
Counting (high)
76.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 78.4
$0.016
75.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7
$0.0094
Identification (low)
89.6%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 93.8
$0.0056
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0036
Identification (high)
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0060
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0063
OCR (low)
63.6%
$0.019
70.4%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
43.5%
Transcription
91.7%
Structured JSON
82.0%
Text localization
52.2%
Single value
62.6%
Transcription
91.8%
Structured JSON
88.0%
Text localization
33.3%
OCR (high)
65.3%
$0.048
69.8%
$0.015
by category
Single value
46.1%
Transcription
92.3%
Structured JSON
83.9%
Text localization
51.6%
Single value
62.2%
Transcription
86.8%
Structured JSON
87.2%
Text localization
35.2%
Reasoning (low)
66.0%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 68.9
$0.0086
73.3%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.0064
Reasoning (high)
71.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.2 to 72.8
$0.012
73.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.012

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.3: 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 1.3

Muse Spark 1.3 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs and the fourth Muse Spark release in five months, arriving on September 2, 2026. It takes text, images, video, and document files as input and returns text, and it operates over a context window of 1,048,576 tokens. Meta trains the model for long-horizon agentic work, so it carries accumulated context and prior tool results forward across many turns, reconciles messy or conflicting inputs, and asks for clarification when a task is underspecified. Visual inputs such as screenshots and video clips feed a reasoning loop that runs against a real execution environment rather than a scripted sequence of steps.

The model exposes graded reasoning effort settings. An xhigh configuration is generally available at launch, while a max reasoning configuration aimed at harder reasoning and agentic problems arrives after further safety testing. Artificial Analysis measures Muse Spark 1.3 (max) at 62 on its Intelligence Index and the xhigh configuration at 61, with agentic tool-use evaluations driving most of the gain over Muse Spark 1.2; max reaches 52% on Tau3-Bench Banking by spending more turns and reasoning tokens than xhigh. Prior Muse Spark versions emit bounding box coordinates, transcriptions, and structured field extractions from images on Roboflow Vision Evals.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.3 performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 73.9% (#16 of 63) against 72.4% (#18 of 63) for GPT-5.6 Sol. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GPT-5.6 Sol leads with 68.4% against 58.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0084 per sample against $0.019. GPT-5.6 Sol is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.3 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-5.6 Sol is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 12.2s per inference against 25.5s. 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.