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, and OCR.
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.
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 1.2 on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 60.2% to 20.2%.
Overall, Grok 4.6 averages 67.8% (#16 of 28) against 80.4% (#5 of 28) for Muse Spark 1.2.
Grok 4.6 is both cheaper ($0.0069 vs $0.0071 per sample) and faster (7.4s vs 7.8s per sample).
Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 12, 2026Pricing updated August 13, 2026
| Property | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Aug 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% | 80.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0069 | $0.0071 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.39s | 7.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 20.2% $0.0068 | 60.2% $0.0094 |
| Counting | 70.3% $0.0074 | 74.3% $0.0049 |
| Identification | 78.1% $0.0048 | 90.6% $0.0038 |
| OCR | 92.0% $0.0086 | 93.8% $0.0079 |
| Data Extraction | 84.5% $0.0042 | 88.7% $0.0033 |
| Reasoning (low) | 61.6% $0.0087 | 74.8% $0.0074 |
| Reasoning (high) | 61.6% $0.027 | 76.2% $0.012 |
Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2: 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 1.2 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.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.2 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 80.4% (#5 of 28) against 67.8% (#16 of 28) 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 1.2 leads with 60.2% against 20.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Grok 4.6 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0069 per sample against $0.0071. Grok 4.6 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.2 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 7.8s. 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.