Roboflow

GPT-6.1 Terra vs Muse Wonder

GPT-6.1 Terra and Muse Wonder score 85.8% vs 78.8% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#2 and #10 of 65 models), so GPT-6.1 Terra leads overall.

  • GPT-6.1 Terra wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (84.7% vs 65.1%).
  • GPT-6.1 Terra is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0033 vs $0.034 overall average cost per sample.
  • GPT-6.1 Terra is faster: 10.1s vs 11.7s per sample.

Compare GPT-6.1 Terra vs Muse Wonder 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 Terra
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Wonder
Run to compare this model.

GPT-6.1 Terra vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals

Score by taskGPT-6.1 TerraMuse Wonder
Object Detection
84.7
65.1
OCR
81.9
74.3
Identification
96.9
92.7
Counting
80.2
76.6
Reasoning
85.4
85.2

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

GPT-6.1 Terra vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table

Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated October 27, 2026

PropertyGPT-6.1 TerraMuse Wonder
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Oct 2026
Context Window1.1M1.0M
Parametersundisclosedundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.00$4.00
Output $/1M$5.00$20.00
Vision Tasks
Promptable Concept SegmentationDemoNot listed
Both support 10 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
85.8%
78.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.034
Avg speed / sample10.05s11.68s
By task
Object Detection (low)
84.7%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.7 to 84.8
$0.0051
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
Object Detection (high)
84.7%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.9
$0.0081
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
Counting (low)
80.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0018
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
Counting (high)
84.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 87.8
$0.0029
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
Identification (low)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0014
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
OCR (low)
81.9%
$0.0033
74.3%
$0.034
by category
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
96.7%
Structured JSON
91.5%
Text localization
77.6%
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
OCR (high)
84.4%
$0.0066
76.0%
$0.059
by category
Single value
74.8%
Transcription
97.0%
Structured JSON
93.4%
Text localization
79.2%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Reasoning (low)
85.4%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 86.8
$0.0016
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
Reasoning (high)
87.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.4 to 88.1
$0.0023
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047

GPT-6.1 Terra vs Muse Wonder: Overview

GPT-6.1 Terra

GPT-6.1 Terra is an OpenAI model released on October 26, 2026 for visual reasoning, computer use and writing. It accepts text and image inputs and produces text, with a 1,050,000-token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens. OpenAI lists applications including matching product photographs to catalog entries, interpreting technical drawings and operating application screens.

The API exposes six reasoning effort settings: none, low, medium, high, xhigh and max. Medium is the default. The model supports structured outputs and tool calling through the Responses API. Vision Evals reports its Low and High results for text understanding, counting, identification, reasoning and object detection, using native OpenAI API inference. Terra is a proprietary model; its weights are not released.

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 Terra performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 85.8% (#2 of 65) against 78.8% (#10 of 65) 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 Terra leads with 84.7% against 65.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-6.1 Terra is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0033 per sample against $0.034. GPT-6.1 Terra is priced at $1.00 per 1M input tokens and $5.00 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.

GPT-6.1 Terra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.1s per inference against 11.7s. 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 object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.