Roboflow

Grok 4.7 vs Muse Ember

Muse Ember and Grok 4.7 score 76.6% vs 63.5% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#16 and #35 of 67 models), so Muse Ember leads overall.

  • Muse Ember wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (63.8% vs 40.4%).
  • Muse Ember is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0009 vs $0.020 overall average cost per sample.
  • Muse Ember is faster: 6.1s vs 33.3s per sample.

Compare Grok 4.7 vs Muse Ember live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Grok 4.7 vs Muse Ember on Vision Evals

Score by taskGrok 4.7Muse Ember
Object Detection
40.4
63.8
Counting
61.7
79.7
Reasoning
64.2
78.2
OCR
63.6
69.5
Identification
87.5
91.7

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

Grok 4.7 vs Muse Ember Comparison Table

Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.7Muse Ember
OrganizationSpaceXAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modality—multimodal
Release DateSep 2026Nov 2026
Context Window500K1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.100
Output $/1M$6.00$0.500
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoSupported
ClassificationDemoSupported
Object DetectionDemoSupported
OCRDemoSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoSupported
Both support 5 more tasks
Model Features
Foundation VisionNot listedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesNot listedSupported
Multimodal VisionNot listedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
63.5%
76.6%
Avg cost / sample$0.020$0.0009
Avg speed / sample33.31s6.08s
By task
Object Detection (low)
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.021
63.8%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.3 to 64.3
$0.0011
Object Detection (high)
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.028
64.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5
$0.0017
Counting (low)
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.011
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.0006
Counting (high)
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.017
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0011
Identification (low)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0063
91.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0004
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0093
90.6%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0007
OCR (low)
63.6%
$0.023
69.5%
$0.0010
by category
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
89.5%
Structured JSON
86.4%
Text localization
14.8%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
85.1%
Text localization
35.3%
OCR (high)–
70.5%
$0.0017
by category
Single value
63.0%
Transcription
90.2%
Structured JSON
87.2%
Text localization
35.9%
Reasoning (low)
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.015
78.2%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5
$0.0006
Reasoning (high)
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.024
81.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4
$0.0013

Grok 4.7 vs Muse Ember: Overview

Grok 4.7

Grok 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from SpaceXAI that accepts images alongside text and returns text-only output. On visual inputs it supports image captioning, visual question answering, OCR, document and chart question answering, and image classification and tagging, with all results expressed as generated text rather than bounding boxes or masks. Its 500,000 token context window leaves room for several images, long documents, or extended conversations about visual content in a single request.

The model exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with low, medium, high, and xhigh levels (high by default), letting callers trade latency for the amount of deliberation spent on a prompt, including multi-step questions about an image. Built on a larger base model than Grok 4.6 with extended reinforcement learning on harder tasks, it works longer on difficult problems and checks its own work more carefully at the same serving speed. SpaceXAI's launch materials focus on coding and agentic knowledge work and report no image benchmark results.

Muse Ember

Muse Ember is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on November 9, 2026. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents and returns text. The Meta Model API serves it as muse-ember-1.0, with a 1,048,576-token context window and up to 524,288 output tokens. Reasoning effort is adjustable from minimal to max.

Meta positions Ember for repeated tasks within larger agent workflows: tool calls, routing, coding subtasks, and processing collections of images and documents. It can caption or sort photos and extract fields from records while a larger Muse model handles planning. Meta recommends Spark or Wonder for harder single-shot coding and knowledge-heavy problems. Ember is available as a hosted model; its weights are not publicly released.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Ember performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 76.6% (#16 of 67) against 63.5% (#35 of 67) for Grok 4.7. 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 at low effort, Muse Ember leads with 63.8% against 40.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Muse Ember is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 per sample against $0.020. Grok 4.7 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output; Muse Ember is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Muse Ember is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.1s per inference against 33.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.