Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.1
Compare Grok 4.6 and Muse Spark 1.1 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, and OCR.
Compare Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.1 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Compare image classification labels and confidence scores side-by-side.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.1 on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Spark 1.1 leads 58.4% to 20.2%.
Overall, Grok 4.6 averages 67.8% (#17 of 30) against 79.3% (#7 of 30) for Muse Spark 1.1.
Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper ($0.0069 vs $0.0069 per sample), while Grok 4.6 is faster (7.4s vs 11.4s per sample).
Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.1 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 500K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $6.00 | $4.25 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 67.8% | 79.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0069 | $0.0069 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.39s | 11.40s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 20.2% $0.0068 | 58.4% $0.010 |
| Counting | 70.3% $0.0074 | 75.7% $0.0043 |
| Identification | 78.1% $0.0048 | 87.5% $0.0032 |
| OCR | 92.0% $0.0086 | 92.5% $0.0063 |
| Data Extraction | 84.5% $0.0042 | 86.6% $0.0031 |
| Reasoning (low) | 61.6% $0.0087 | 74.8% $0.0065 |
| Reasoning (high) | 61.6% $0.027 | 76.2% $0.013 |
Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.1: Overview
Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family rather than producing pixel level outputs such as boxes or masks.
xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.
Muse Spark 1.1 is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released on July 9, 2026, as a significant upgrade to the original Muse Spark. The model accepts text, image, video, PDF, and audio as input and produces text output. It operates with a 1-million-token context window (1,048,576 tokens per the Meta Model API documentation) and is designed specifically for agentic tasks that require planning, tool use, computer use, and multi-agent orchestration. The model runs in a "Thinking" mode, where adjustable reasoning effort is applied before generating a response. It can function both as a main agent gathering context, forming plans, and delegating to parallel subagents and as a subagent that adheres to assigned tasks and escalates when needed. It is trained to decide autonomously when to write automation scripts versus interact directly with a user interface.
Muse Spark 1.1 supports a range of multimodal capabilities including visual perception, image and video captioning, visual-to-code generation, and document analysis. The model was evaluated under Meta's Advanced AI Scaling Framework across frontier risk categories including chemical and biological threats, cybersecurity, and loss-of-control scenarios. Parameter count, architecture details, and training data composition are not publicly disclosed. The model is proprietary and closed-weight, accessible to consumers through the Meta AI app and to developers via the Meta Model API, which launched in public preview alongside this release.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.1 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 79.3% (#7 of 30) against 67.8% (#17 of 30) for Grok 4.6. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Muse Spark 1.1 leads with 58.4% against 20.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0069 per sample against $0.0069. Grok 4.6 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.1 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Grok 4.6 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s per inference against 11.4s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.