Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Muse Spark 1.3

Compare GPT-5.6 Terra and Muse Spark 1.3 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Classification, Open Prompt, Object Detection, OCR, and Image Captioning.

Compare GPT-5.6 Terra 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 Terra
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.3
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Muse Spark 1.3 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is OCR, where Muse Spark 1.3 leads 70.4% to 56.3%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Terra averages 66.0% (#26 of 63) against 73.9% (#16 of 63) for Muse Spark 1.3.

Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper ($0.0084 vs $0.010 per sample), while GPT-5.6 Terra is faster (9.5s vs 25.5s per sample).

GPT-5.6 TerraMuse Spark 1.3

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Muse Spark 1.3 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 18, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.6 TerraMuse Spark 1.3
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.1M1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$1.25
Output $/1M$12.00$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
66.0%
73.9%
Avg cost / sample$0.010$0.0084
Avg speed / sample9.52s25.50s
By task
Object Detection (low)
60.6%
±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 60.7
$0.014
58.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
61.3%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 61.6
$0.026
56.6%
±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3
$0.017
Counting (low)
65.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 67.6
$0.0056
74.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0049
Counting (high)
62.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 64.9
$0.0076
75.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7
$0.0094
Identification (low)
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0034
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0036
Identification (high)
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0038
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0063
OCR (low)
56.3%
$0.011
70.4%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
36.1%
Transcription
79.9%
Structured JSON
76.8%
Text localization
42.3%
Single value
62.6%
Transcription
91.8%
Structured JSON
88.0%
Text localization
33.3%
OCR (high)
56.9%
$0.021
69.8%
$0.015
by category
Single value
37.4%
Transcription
80.2%
Structured JSON
77.3%
Text localization
41.9%
Single value
62.2%
Transcription
86.8%
Structured JSON
87.2%
Text localization
35.2%
Reasoning (low)
60.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 63.6
$0.0051
73.3%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.0064
Reasoning (high)
65.3%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.2 to 66.2
$0.0067
73.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.012

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Muse Spark 1.3: Overview

GPT-5.6 Terra

GPT-5.6 Terra is the mid-tier reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes the flagship Sol and the lightweight Luna. Introduced in a limited preview on June 26, 2026, and made broadly available on July 9, 2026, Terra accepts text and image input and produces text output, supporting vision, function calling, tool use, and agentic workflows. It is designed as a balanced option for everyday professional and production workloads — including coding assistance, document analysis, customer support, and multi-step agent tasks — where both output quality and cost efficiency matter. OpenAI positions Terra as delivering performance competitive with GPT-5.5 at approximately half the price, with a context window of around 1,050,000 tokens. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Terra scores 84.3%, matching Claude Fable 5 on that benchmark. Under OpenAI's Preparedness Framework, Terra is rated High for cybersecurity and biological capabilities, meaning it demonstrates meaningful capability in those domains without reaching the Critical threshold.

GPT-5.6 introduces a new naming convention in which the generation number (5.6) is paired with a durable capability tier name (Sol, Terra, or Luna), allowing each tier to advance on its own schedule. Terra carries the API identifier gpt-5.6-terra and supports the same reasoning effort controls available across the family, including adjustable reasoning depth. The model includes prompt caching with explicit cache breakpoints and a 30-minute minimum cache life, with cache writes billed at 1.25x the uncached input rate and cache reads receiving a 90% discount. GPT-5.6 Terra is a proprietary, closed-weights model served through the OpenAI API, Codex, and ChatGPT.

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 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 73.9% (#16 of 63) against 66.0% (#26 of 63) for GPT-5.6 Terra. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals OCR benchmark at low effort, Muse Spark 1.3 leads with 70.4% against 56.3%. 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 $0.010. GPT-5.6 Terra is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 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 Terra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.5s 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 image classification and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.