Roboflow

Grok 4.7 vs Muse Wonder

Compare Grok 4.7 and Muse Wonder side-by-side.

Compare Grok 4.7 vs Muse Wonder 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.

Models in this comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals

Muse Wonder scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Muse Wonder leads 65.1% to 40.4%.

Overall, Grok 4.7 averages 63.5% (#30 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.

Grok 4.7 is cheaper ($0.020 vs $0.034 per sample), while Muse Wonder is faster (11.7s vs 33.3s per sample).

Grok 4.7Muse Wonder

Grok 4.7 vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.7Muse Wonder
OrganizationSpaceXAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modality—multimodal
Release DateSep 2026Oct 2026
Context Window500K1.0M
ParametersUnknownundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$4.00
Output $/1M$6.00$20.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoSupported
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoSupported
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoSupported
OCRDemoSupported
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoSupported
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%
78.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.020$0.034
Avg speed / sample33.31s11.68s
By task
Object Detection (low)
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.021
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
Object Detection (high)
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.028
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
Counting (low)
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.011
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
Counting (high)
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.017
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
Identification (low)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0063
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0093
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
OCR (low)
63.6%
$0.023
74.3%
$0.034
by category
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
89.5%
Structured JSON
86.4%
Text localization
14.8%
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
OCR (high)–
76.0%
$0.059
by category
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Reasoning (low)
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.015
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
Reasoning (high)
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.024
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047

Grok 4.7 vs Muse Wonder: 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 Wonder

Muse Wonder is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on October 12, 2026 as the first step past the Muse Spark line on Meta's scaling ladder. It launched together with Muse Wonder Full, a larger configuration that is available only through Muse Code subscription plans, while Muse Wonder itself is served through the Meta Model API under the identifier muse-wonder-1.0. The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents as input and returns text, with a context window of 1,048,576 tokens and graded reasoning effort settings. Meta trained both models at its Prometheus data center on larger base models than Muse Spark 1.3, and attributes their gains on unfamiliar tasks to post-training that transfers more effectively from a stronger base.

Meta positions Muse Wonder for long-running personal and professional agents: it plans multi-step work, delegates to sub-agents, calls tools in parallel, recovers from errors, and operates browsers and desktop or mobile applications. Two training objectives shape this behaviour. Active Memory carries goals, constraints, and earlier decisions across conversations and retrieves the details relevant to the current step, and Active Focus keeps the model trying alternative approaches when a task gets difficult while asking for clarification before important actions. Visual inputs such as screenshots, charts, and video feed the same reasoning loop, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for grounding queries. Meta's model card lists visual and spatial reasoning, especially 3D tasks, as a known limitation and recommends validating performance for applications that depend on precise spatial understanding.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 63.5% (#30 of 62) 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 Wonder leads with 65.1% against 40.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Grok 4.7 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.020 per sample against $0.034. Grok 4.7 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output; Muse Wonder is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Muse Wonder is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.7s per inference against 33.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.