Roboflow

Grok 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare Grok 4.5 and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.

Compare Grok 4.5 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
GrokGrok 4.5
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Grok 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 59.0% to 19.0%.

Overall, Grok 4.5 averages 55.3% (#46 of 63) against 73.8% (#17 of 63) for Muse Spark 1.2.

Grok 4.5 is cheaper ($0.0078 vs $0.0083 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (11.5s vs 16.4s per sample).

Grok 4.5Muse Spark 1.2

Grok 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

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

PropertyGrok 4.5Muse Spark 1.2
OrganizationSpaceXAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window500K1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$1.25
Output $/1M$6.00$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
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
55.3%
73.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0078$0.0083
Avg speed / sample16.41s11.51s
By task
Object Detection (low)
19.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 18.0 to 19.6
$0.011
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
Object Detection (high)
17.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 17.5 to 18.0
$0.020
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)
59.5%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 62.2
$0.0065
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
Counting (high)
57.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 60.8
$0.012
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$0.0046
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
Identification (high)
85.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0067
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)
57.1%
$0.0065
68.7%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
47.8%
Transcription
85.4%
Structured JSON
80.3%
Text localization
6.1%
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
OCR (high)
57.5%
$0.013
68.6%
$0.014
by category
Single value
47.8%
Transcription
86.1%
Structured JSON
80.9%
Text localization
7.0%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Reasoning (low)
57.6%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 58.9
$0.0082
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)
59.8%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 62.3
$0.019
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

Grok 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

Grok 4.5

Grok 4.5 is a proprietary reasoning model from SpaceXAI (xAI) that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window. xAI positions it as a model for coding, agentic software work, and knowledge tasks, and states it was trained in the company's Memphis data centers on datasets spanning science, engineering, and mathematics. Its reinforcement learning stage covers hundreds of thousands of multi step software engineering tasks scored by automated checks and model based grading, and training is reported to have run on tens of thousands of NVIDIA GB300 GPUs using an asynchronous scheme in which multi hour agentic rollouts continue while learning proceeds in parallel, targeting long horizon autonomous operation rather than single turn inference.

For vision, the model consumes JPEG and PNG images in any order relative to text prompts, covering visual question answering, description of chart and document imagery, and reading text rendered inside a scene. Reasoning effort is configurable, and the model supports function calling and structured outputs, so image inputs can be interleaved with tool calls inside agent loops. xAI has not published a technical report, architecture details, or parameter count, and reported mixture of experts sizing figures come from secondary coverage rather than official documentation.

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.