Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Spark 1.3
Compare Mistral Large 4 and Muse Spark 1.3 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Spark 1.3 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
Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Spark 1.3 on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.3 leads 73.3% to 38.9%.
Overall, Mistral Large 4 averages 68.5% (#36 of 61) against 79.8% (#15 of 61) for Muse Spark 1.3.
Mistral Large 4 is both cheaper ($0.0018 vs $0.0075 per sample) and faster (8.8s vs 23.1s per sample).
Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Spark 1.3 Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026
| Property | Mistral Large 4 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Mistral | Meta |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 1.05T total, 49B active | Unknown |
| License | Custom | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.680 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $2.09 | $4.25 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Phrase Grounding | Supported | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 68.5% | 79.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0018 | $0.0075 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.78s | 23.14s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 59.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.0 | 58.6% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4 |
| Object Detection (high) | 50.2% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.0 to 53.0 | 56.6% ±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3 |
| Counting (low) | 54.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 55.4 | 74.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 |
| Counting (high) | 63.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9 | 75.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | 85.4% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 | 92.7% ±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 | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 92.7% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.8 to 93.3 | 91.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.6 |
| OCR (high) | 87.1% ±4.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.6 to 90.4 | 86.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.2 to 90.4 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 80.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 | 88.7% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 | 87.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6 |
| Reasoning (low) | 38.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 38.4 to 39.1 | 73.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 57.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 59.6 | 73.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 |
Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Spark 1.3: 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 Spark 1.3 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs and the fourth Muse Spark release in five months, arriving on September 2, 2026. It takes text, images, video, and document files as input and returns text, and it operates over a context window of 1,048,576 tokens. Meta trains the model for long-horizon agentic work, so it carries accumulated context and prior tool results forward across many turns, reconciles messy or conflicting inputs, and asks for clarification when a task is underspecified. Visual inputs such as screenshots and video clips feed a reasoning loop that runs against a real execution environment rather than a scripted sequence of steps.
The model exposes graded reasoning effort settings. An xhigh configuration is generally available at launch, while a max reasoning configuration aimed at harder reasoning and agentic problems arrives after further safety testing. Artificial Analysis measures Muse Spark 1.3 (max) at 62 on its Intelligence Index and the xhigh configuration at 61, with agentic tool-use evaluations driving most of the gain over Muse Spark 1.2; max reaches 52% on Tau3-Bench Banking by spending more turns and reasoning tokens than xhigh. Prior Muse Spark versions emit bounding box coordinates, transcriptions, and structured field extractions from images on Roboflow Vision Evals.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.3 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#15 of 61) against 68.5% (#36 of 61) 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 Spark 1.3 leads with 73.3% against 38.9%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Mistral Large 4 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0018 per sample against $0.0075. Mistral Large 4 is priced at $0.68 per 1M input tokens and $2.09 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.3 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.
Mistral Large 4 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.8s per inference against 23.1s. 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.