Roboflow

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare GPT-6.1 Sol and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare GPT-6.1 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-6.1 Sol
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 80.8% to 59.0%.

Overall, GPT-6.1 Sol averages 81.7% (#5 of 63) against 73.8% (#17 of 63) for Muse Spark 1.2.

GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper ($0.0068 vs $0.0083 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (11.5s vs 12.8s per sample).

GPT-6.1 SolMuse Spark 1.2

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6.1 SolMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.1M1.0M
ParametersundisclosedUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$1.25
Output $/1M$10.00$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
Promptable Concept SegmentationDemoNot listed
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
81.7%
73.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0068$0.0083
Avg speed / sample12.82s11.51s
By task
Object Detection (low)
80.8%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9
$0.010
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
Object Detection (high)
81.6%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0
$0.022
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)
78.8%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4
$0.0037
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
Counting (high)
80.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8
$0.0057
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0025
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
Identification (high)
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0030
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)
75.8%
$0.0069
68.7%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
58.3%
Transcription
95.7%
Structured JSON
89.5%
Text localization
74.4%
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
OCR (high)
75.8%
$0.016
68.6%
$0.014
by category
Single value
56.5%
Transcription
96.0%
Structured JSON
90.4%
Text localization
76.7%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Reasoning (low)
83.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8
$0.0033
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)
88.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4
$0.0042
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

GPT-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol is a reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-6 series that accepts text and image input and returns text. It is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol positioned to approach the intelligence of the larger GPT-6 Astra model on agentic coding, computer use, and professional knowledge work. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning effort control, ranging from low settings for simple turns to maximum settings for harder tasks, and can be driven with tool use enabled or disabled. It operates over a context window of roughly one million tokens and emits up to 128,000 output tokens in a single response, which supports long-running agent loops over large codebases and multi-document collections. Audio and video inputs are not supported.

On the visual side, the model is evaluated on GDP.pdf, a benchmark that asks professional questions about complex PDF documents containing tables, charts, diagrams, and fine-print details, and on OSWorld 2.0, which measures agents operating graphical computer applications. OpenAI reports that GPT-6.1 Sol performs on par with or better than GPT-6 Sol across its image input safety evaluations, and that the share of responses containing a factual error at low reasoning effort falls from 11.4 percent to 7.7 percent.

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.