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 Sol vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | GPT-6.1 Sol | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | undisclosed | undisclosed |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $20.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Supported |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Supported |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Supported |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
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 / sample | 12.82s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 80.8% ±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9 | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 81.6% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 78.8% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4 | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | 80.2% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 75.8% | 74.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 75.8% | 76.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 83.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8 | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 88.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4 | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Wonder: Overview
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 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.