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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
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 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Grok 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 500K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $6.00 | $4.25 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
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 / sample | 16.41s | 11.51s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 19.0% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 18.0 to 19.6 | 59.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2 |
| Object Detection (high) | 17.8% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 17.5 to 18.0 | 60.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7 |
| Counting (low) | 59.5% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 62.2 | 76.6% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7 |
| Counting (high) | 57.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 60.8 | 75.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 |
| Identification (low) | 83.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 85.4% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 | 87.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 57.1% | 68.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 57.5% | 68.6% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 57.6% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 58.9 | 75.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 59.8% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 62.3 | 75.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2 |
Grok 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview
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 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.