Roboflow

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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on all five 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 49.2% (#55 of 63) against 73.8% (#17 of 63) for Muse Spark 1.2.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0083 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (11.5s vs 16.3s per sample).

MiMo V2.6 FlashMuse Spark 1.2

MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

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

PropertyMiMo V2.6 FlashMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationXiaomiMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters309B total, 15B activeUnknown
LicenseMITProprietary
Commercial usefree for commercial usecommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.140$1.25
Output $/1M$0.280$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
49.2%
73.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0003$0.0083
Avg speed / sample16.34s11.51s
By task
Object Detection (low)
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
Object Detection (high)
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
Counting (high)
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)
76.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1
$0.0001
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
Identification (high)
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)
49.7%
$0.0004
68.7%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
72.5%
Structured JSON
68.6%
Text localization
9.2%
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
OCR (high)
50.4%
$0.0012
68.6%
$0.014
by category
Single value
42.2%
Transcription
68.9%
Structured JSON
69.2%
Text localization
13.2%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Reasoning (low)
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

MiMo V2.6 Flash

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

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.