Roboflow

GPT-6 Astra vs Muse Wonder

Compare GPT-6 Astra and Muse Wonder side-by-side.

Compare GPT-6 Astra 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 Astra vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals

GPT-6 Astra scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6 Astra leads 82.1% to 65.1%.

Overall, GPT-6 Astra averages 83.4% (#1 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.

GPT-6 Astra is both cheaper ($0.034 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (9.9s vs 11.7s per sample).

GPT-6 AstraMuse Wonder

GPT-6 Astra vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6 AstraMuse 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$10.00$4.00
Output $/1M$50.00$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
83.4%
78.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.034$0.034
Avg speed / sample9.94s11.68s
By task
Object Detection (low)
82.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.0 to 82.7
$0.050
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
Object Detection (high)
83.6%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.5
$0.101
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
Counting (low)
80.2%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.018
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
Counting (high)
81.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 82.4
$0.028
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
$0.013
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
Identification (high)
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
OCR (low)
77.8%
$0.034
74.3%
$0.034
by category
Single value
60.9%
Transcription
95.9%
Structured JSON
91.8%
Text localization
75.5%
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
OCR (high)
77.6%
$0.084
76.0%
$0.059
by category
Single value
59.6%
Transcription
97.5%
Structured JSON
91.7%
Text localization
76.8%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Reasoning (low)
87.2%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.1 to 88.1
$0.016
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
Reasoning (high)
91.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.4
$0.021
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047

GPT-6 Astra vs Muse Wonder: Overview

GPT-6 Astra

GPT-6 Astra is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI that accepts text and image input and produces text output. It is positioned as the company's flagship system for long-horizon end-to-end work spanning complex reasoning, software engineering, computer use, browsing, research and document creation. The model exposes a graduated reasoning effort control with low, medium, high, xhigh and max settings, and it accepts a change to that setting partway through a conversation rather than only at request time. It launches as a single tier with no smaller mini or nano variants, carries a context window of roughly 1.05 million tokens with a maximum output of 128,000 tokens, and reports a knowledge cutoff of April 30, 2026.

OpenAI reports evaluation results across agentic, scientific and security benchmarks, including 96.0% on GPQA Diamond, 64.6% on Terminal-Bench Science, 72.6% on OSWorld 2.0, and a perfect score on ExploitBench, along with near saturation on FrontierMath Tier 4 and ARC-AGI-3. The model supports computer use, structured outputs, streaming, programmatic tool calling, multi-agent orchestration, prompt caching and persisted reasoning, and it keeps earlier context windows searchable so it can recover requirements or tool outputs from previous turns. OpenAI describes Astra as the first of its models to cross the Critical cybersecurity capability threshold under its Preparedness Framework.

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 Astra performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 83.4% (#1 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 Astra leads with 82.1% against 65.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-6 Astra is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.034 per sample against $0.034. GPT-6 Astra is priced at $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 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 Astra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.9s per inference against 11.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.