Roboflow

GPT-6 Sol vs Muse Wonder

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

Compare GPT-6 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

OpenAI

GPT-6 Sol vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals

GPT-6 Sol scores higher on 2 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 72.6%.

Overall, GPT-6 Sol averages 76.9% (#11 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.

GPT-6 Sol is both cheaper ($0.0074 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (10.2s vs 11.7s per sample).

GPT-6 SolMuse Wonder

GPT-6 Sol vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6 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
76.9%
78.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0074$0.034
Avg speed / sample10.20s11.68s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.7%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.5
$0.011
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
Object Detection (high)
76.4%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 77.4
$0.022
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
Counting (low)
76.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 78.4
$0.0039
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
Counting (high)
77.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.0070
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0027
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
$0.0036
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
OCR (low)
66.7%
$0.0077
74.3%
$0.034
by category
Single value
45.6%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
83.4%
Text localization
65.7%
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
OCR (high)
68.8%
$0.018
76.0%
$0.059
by category
Single value
47.4%
Transcription
91.0%
Structured JSON
85.3%
Text localization
68.7%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Reasoning (low)
72.6%
±3.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.5 to 76.8
$0.0037
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
Reasoning (high)
77.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 78.8
$0.0061
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047

GPT-6 Sol vs Muse Wonder: Overview

GPT-6 Sol

GPT-6 Sol is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI, released on September 22, 2026 alongside GPT-6 Luna as an efficiency-oriented tier of the GPT-6 family that began with GPT-6 Astra. OpenAI states that Sol and Luna are trained with methods similar to those used for Astra, carrying the same work on professional tasks, factuality, coding, computer use, and alignment into models that run faster. Sol accepts text and image input and returns text output, and OpenAI documents a context window of roughly one million tokens together with a knowledge cutoff of April 20, 2026.

The model targets complex coding and agentic workflows and exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with levels of none, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max, which trades latency and token consumption against answer quality. OpenAI reports results including 33.2% on AutomationBench at xhigh effort and 56.4% on Agents' Last Exam at max effort, while its reported DeepSWE and OSWorld 2.0 figures of 68.8% and 64.4% fall below those of the earlier GPT-5.6 Sol. Its vision behavior covers image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, captioning, document and chart interpretation, and text recognition.

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, Muse Wonder performed slightly better overall. The two split the five vision tasks 2 to 2, but Muse Wonder averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 76.9% (#11 of 62) for GPT-6 Sol. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Wonder leads with 85.2% against 72.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-6 Sol is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0074 per sample against $0.034. GPT-6 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.

GPT-6 Sol is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.2s per inference against 11.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.