MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2
Compare MiMo V2.6 Flash and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare MiMo V2.6 Flash 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 75.1% to 33.1%.
Overall, MiMo V2.6 Flash averages 60.6% (#52 of 59) against 80.5% (#12 of 59) for Muse Spark 1.2.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0072 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (7.8s vs 9.2s per sample).
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | MiMo V2.6 Flash | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | Meta |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 309B total, 15B active | |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.140 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $0.280 | $4.25 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| object-detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 60.6% | 80.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0003 | $0.0072 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.20s | 7.81s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 | 59.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2 |
| Object Detection (high) | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 | 60.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7 |
| Counting (low) | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 | 76.6% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7 |
| Counting (high) | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 | 75.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 |
| Identification (low) | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 82.3% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5 | 87.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 87.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7 | 93.6% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.9 to 94.1 |
| OCR (high) | 87.0% ±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5 | 92.9% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 93.6 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 80.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 | 89.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 89.7 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 | 88.3% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7 |
| Reasoning (low) | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 | 75.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 | 75.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2 |
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the efficiency-oriented checkpoint of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.6 series, a natively omnimodal foundation model that accepts text, image, video, and audio in a single model and supports a one million token context window. The language backbone is a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with roughly 309 billion total parameters and 15 billion activated per token, organized as 48 layers with 256 routed experts and top-8 routing. It uses a hybrid attention scheme that interleaves sliding window attention with global attention layers to cut key-value cache cost on long sequences, and pairs the backbone with a vision encoder, an audio encoder, and an audio tokenizer, plus a multi-token prediction module and a draft model for faster decoding.
Training emphasizes large scale reinforcement learning on verifiable, long-horizon tasks, with RL compute, environment diversity, and grader compute scaled together in a single mixed run. Xiaomi reports gains during RL on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, a cybersecurity benchmark, and an internal visual coding benchmark, reflecting a focus on agentic coding, computer use, and multimodal document and screen understanding rather than single turn chat.
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 80.5% (#12 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Spark 1.2 leads with 75.1% against 33.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0003 per sample against $0.0072. MiMo V2.6 Flash is priced at $0.14 per 1M input tokens and $0.28 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.
Muse Spark 1.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s per inference against 9.2s. 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 OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.