Roboflow

GPT-6 Luna vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare GPT-6 Luna 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 Luna 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 Luna
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-6 Luna vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 75.1% to 64.2%.

Overall, GPT-6 Luna averages 69.7% (#21 of 63) against 73.8% (#17 of 63) for Muse Spark 1.2.

GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0083 per sample) and faster (10.2s vs 11.5s per sample).

GPT-6 LunaMuse Spark 1.2

GPT-6 Luna vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6 LunaMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.1M1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$1.25
Output $/1M$0.500$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
69.7%
73.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0004$0.0083
Avg speed / sample10.21s11.51s
By task
Object Detection (low)
65.5%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.0
$0.0006
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
Object Detection (high)
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 68.6
$0.0014
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)
71.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 71.6
$0.0002
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
Counting (high)
72.1%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 73.0
$0.0004
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
Identification (high)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)
59.8%
$0.0004
68.7%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
80.0%
Structured JSON
78.2%
Text localization
47.4%
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
OCR (high)
62.5%
$0.0013
68.6%
$0.014
by category
Single value
44.4%
Transcription
84.0%
Structured JSON
81.0%
Text localization
50.0%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Reasoning (low)
64.2%
±3.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 66.2
$0.0003
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)
71.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.2 to 72.8
$0.0004
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

GPT-6 Luna vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

GPT-6 Luna

GPT-6 Luna is the fast, cost-efficient tier of OpenAI's GPT-6 model family, sitting below GPT-6 Sol and the larger GPT-6 Astra model that opened the generation. It is a proprietary multimodal transformer that accepts text and image input and returns text, and it exposes an adjustable reasoning effort setting so the same model can run in a low-latency mode or spend additional inference compute on harder problems. OpenAI positions it for high-volume and latency-sensitive workloads such as conversational assistants, classification, and lightweight agentic pipelines, while noting that at higher reasoning effort it handles software engineering and computer-use tasks that previously required a Sol-tier model.

The model supports a context window of roughly 1,050,000 input tokens with a maximum output of 128,000 tokens, which allows long documents, extended agent traces, and large code repositories to be processed in a single request. OpenAI describes the GPT-6 generation as improving factual reliability and adopting a more concise communication style relative to the GPT-5.6 series, and attributes the efficiency of the Sol and Luna tiers to gains in caching and inference rather than to reduced capability. Architecture details, parameter counts, and training data are not published.

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.