Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Ember
Muse Ember and Mistral Large 4 score 76.6% vs 56.8% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#16 and #45 of 67 models), so Muse Ember leads overall.
- Muse Ember wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (78.2% vs 38.9%).
- Muse Ember is about a quarter of the cost: $0.0009 vs $0.0033 overall average cost per sample.
- Muse Ember is faster: 6.1s vs 31.2s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Mistral Large 4 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.
Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Ember on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Ember Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Mistral Large 4 | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Mistral | Meta |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Nov 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 1.05T total, 49B active | Unknown |
| License | Custom | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | See license terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.700 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | $2.10 | $0.500 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Supported |
| Phrase Grounding | Supported | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 56.8% | 76.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0033 | $0.0009 |
| Avg speed / sample | 31.23s | 6.08s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 59.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.0 | 63.8% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.3 to 64.3 |
| Object Detection (high) | 50.2% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.0 to 53.0 | 64.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5 |
| Counting (low) | 54.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 55.4 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Counting (high) | 63.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9 | 79.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | 85.4% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 | 91.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 85.4% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 | 90.6% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | 46.1% | 69.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 54.5% | 70.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 38.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 38.4 to 39.1 | 78.2% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 57.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 59.6 | 81.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4 |
Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Ember: Overview
Mistral Large 4, nicknamed Le Chonk, is a natively multimodal mixture-of-experts model from Mistral that accepts interleaved text and image input and produces text output. It uses a granular MoE design with roughly 1.05 trillion total parameters and 49 billion active per token, reported as 52 billion when embeddings and output layers are counted, paired with a 1.6 billion parameter vision encoder and a context window of one million tokens. The model is trained from scratch on about 3,800 NVIDIA Grace Blackwell GPUs in Mistral's European data centers and supports more than 160 languages. It behaves as a hybrid instruct and reasoning system, with a reasoning effort setting that selects between direct answers and longer deliberation, alongside function calling and structured output for agentic workflows.
Image understanding is a focus of this generation, covering documents, charts, technical drawings and natural scenes, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for visual grounding queries. Reported grounding results include 42 percent on Dense200 and 73 percent on the DIOR-RSVG remote sensing benchmark. Mistral describes agentic vision workflows in which the model zooms into gigapixel satellite imagery or engineering drawings to verify details, and reports coding results such as 62 percent on DeepSWE. Figures published at preview time are preliminary because the reinforcement learning phase is still in progress.
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 56.8% (#45 of 67) for Mistral Large 4. 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 Ember leads with 78.2% against 38.9%. 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 $0.0033. Mistral Large 4 is priced at $0.70 per 1M input tokens and $2.10 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 31.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.