Roboflow

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Wonder

Compare GPT-6.1 Sol and Muse Wonder side-by-side.

Compare GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Wonder live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals

GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 80.8% to 65.1%.

Overall, GPT-6.1 Sol averages 81.7% (#4 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.

GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper ($0.0068 vs $0.034 per sample), while Muse Wonder is faster (11.7s vs 12.8s per sample).

GPT-6.1 SolMuse Wonder

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6.1 SolMuse Wonder
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Oct 2026
Context Window1.1M1.0M
Parametersundisclosedundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$4.00
Output $/1M$10.00$20.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoSupported
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoSupported
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoSupported
OCRDemoSupported
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoSupported
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%
78.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0068$0.034
Avg speed / sample12.82s11.68s
By task
Object Detection (low)
80.8%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9
$0.010
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
Object Detection (high)
81.6%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0
$0.022
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
Counting (low)
78.8%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4
$0.0037
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
Counting (high)
80.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8
$0.0057
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
Identification (low)
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0025
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
Identification (high)
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0030
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
OCR (low)
75.8%
$0.0069
74.3%
$0.034
by category
Single value
58.3%
Transcription
95.7%
Structured JSON
89.5%
Text localization
74.4%
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
OCR (high)
75.8%
$0.016
76.0%
$0.059
by category
Single value
56.5%
Transcription
96.0%
Structured JSON
90.4%
Text localization
76.7%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Reasoning (low)
83.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8
$0.0033
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
Reasoning (high)
88.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4
$0.0042
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Wonder: 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 Wonder

Muse Wonder is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on October 12, 2026 as the first step past the Muse Spark line on Meta's scaling ladder. It launched together with Muse Wonder Full, a larger configuration that is available only through Muse Code subscription plans, while Muse Wonder itself is served through the Meta Model API under the identifier muse-wonder-1.0. The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents as input and returns text, with a context window of 1,048,576 tokens and graded reasoning effort settings. Meta trained both models at its Prometheus data center on larger base models than Muse Spark 1.3, and attributes their gains on unfamiliar tasks to post-training that transfers more effectively from a stronger base.

Meta positions Muse Wonder for long-running personal and professional agents: it plans multi-step work, delegates to sub-agents, calls tools in parallel, recovers from errors, and operates browsers and desktop or mobile applications. Two training objectives shape this behaviour. Active Memory carries goals, constraints, and earlier decisions across conversations and retrieves the details relevant to the current step, and Active Focus keeps the model trying alternative approaches when a task gets difficult while asking for clarification before important actions. Visual inputs such as screenshots, charts, and video feed the same reasoning loop, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for grounding queries. Meta's model card lists visual and spatial reasoning, especially 3D tasks, as a known limitation and recommends validating performance for applications that depend on precise spatial understanding.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6.1 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 81.7% (#4 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder. 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-6.1 Sol leads with 80.8% against 65.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0068 per sample against $0.034. GPT-6.1 Sol is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Muse Wonder is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Muse Wonder is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.7s per inference against 12.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.