Roboflow

MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare MiMo V2.6 Pro 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 Pro 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 Pro
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

MiMo V2.6 Pro 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 35.1%.

Overall, MiMo V2.6 Pro averages 50.3% (#52 of 61) against 73.8% (#15 of 61) for Muse Spark 1.2.

MiMo V2.6 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0011 vs $0.0083 per sample) and faster (9.5s vs 11.5s per sample).

MiMo V2.6 ProMuse Spark 1.2

MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 10, 2026

PropertyMiMo V2.6 ProMuse Spark 1.2
OrganizationXiaomiMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters1.02T total, 42B activeUnknown
LicenseMITProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.435$1.25
Output $/1M$0.870$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
50.3%
73.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0011$0.0083
Avg speed / sample9.45s11.51s
By task
Object Detection (low)
42.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1
$0.0014
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
Object Detection (high)
46.7%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3
$0.0030
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)
50.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7
$0.0005
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
Counting (high)
59.0%
±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5
$0.0016
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)
76.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1
$0.0004
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
Identification (high)
78.1%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3
$0.0012
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)
48.6%
$0.0012
68.7%
$0.0086
by category
Single value
37.0%
Transcription
68.2%
Structured JSON
67.7%
Text localization
18.7%
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
OCR (high)
49.9%
$0.0034
68.6%
$0.014
by category
Single value
40.4%
Transcription
59.9%
Structured JSON
70.2%
Text localization
16.8%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Reasoning (low)
35.1%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8
$0.0005
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
Reasoning (high)
55.9%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9
$0.0026
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

MiMo V2.6 Pro

MiMo V2.6 Pro is the flagship omni-modal foundation model in Xiaomi's MiMo V2.6 series, released as open weights alongside a Flash variant and a 9B distillation of Qwen3.5. It uses a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with 1.02 trillion total parameters and roughly 42 billion activated per token, paired with a hybrid attention design that interleaves sliding-window and global attention layers to support a context window of about one million tokens. Dedicated encoders handle non-text inputs, including a vision encoder of roughly 681 million parameters and an audio tokenizer stack, so the model accepts text, images, video, and audio and returns text.

Post-training centers on large-scale reinforcement learning across thousands of interactive environments, combined with agentic grading, self-correction cold start, and a multi-prefix multi-teacher on-policy distillation stage that extends behavior to tasks that are hard to verify automatically. The resulting model targets long-horizon agentic work such as software engineering, terminal and computer-use operation, tool calling, cybersecurity analysis, and visual coding, and it reports gains over the prior MiMo generation on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, and internal visual coding and cyber benchmarks.

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.