Roboflow

Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare Grok 4.6 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 4.6 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 4.6
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Grok 4.6 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 23.8%.

Overall, Grok 4.6 averages 59.1% (#34 of 61) against 73.8% (#15 of 61) for Muse Spark 1.2.

Muse Spark 1.2 is both cheaper ($0.0083 vs $0.011 per sample) and faster (11.5s vs 19.3s per sample).

Grok 4.6Muse Spark 1.2

Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 9, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
OrganizationSpaceXAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window500K1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
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
59.1%
73.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.011$0.0083
Avg speed / sample19.32s11.51s
By task
Object Detection (low)
23.8%
±2.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 20.2 to 25.9
$0.013
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
Object Detection (high)
24.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 23.1 to 25.1
$0.041
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)
65.8%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 70.3
$0.0079
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
Counting (high)
56.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1
$0.027
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)
84.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0055
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
Identification (high)
85.4%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.015
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)
60.6%
$0.011
68.7%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
50.0%
Transcription
89.0%
Structured JSON
84.4%
Text localization
11.0%
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
OCR (high)
61.2%
$0.030
68.6%
$0.014
by category
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
88.7%
Structured JSON
85.7%
Text localization
9.4%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Reasoning (low)
61.1%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 62.3
$0.0093
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)
63.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.2
$0.032
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

Grok 4.6

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, and it can also return object detection boxes as text coordinates when prompted.

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 1.2

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.