Roboflow

Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Wonder

Compare Mistral Large 4 and Muse Wonder side-by-side.

Compare Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Wonder 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.

Models in this comparison

Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals

Muse Wonder scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 38.9%.

Overall, Mistral Large 4 averages 56.8% (#40 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.

Mistral Large 4 is cheaper ($0.0033 vs $0.034 per sample), while Muse Wonder is faster (11.7s vs 31.2s per sample).

Mistral Large 4Muse Wonder

Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table

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

PropertyMistral Large 4Muse Wonder
OrganizationMistralMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Oct 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters1.05T total, 49B activeundisclosed
LicenseCustomProprietary
Commercial useSee license termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.680$4.00
Output $/1M$2.09$20.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoSupported
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoSupported
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoSupported
OCRDemoSupported
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoSupported
Phrase GroundingSupportedNot listed
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
56.8%
78.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.034
Avg speed / sample31.23s11.68s
By task
Object Detection (low)
59.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.0
$0.0028
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
Object Detection (high)
50.2%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.0 to 53.0
$0.023
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
Counting (low)
54.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 55.4
$0.0010
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
Counting (high)
63.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9
$0.0094
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
Identification (low)
85.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0009
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
Identification (high)
85.4%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0044
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
OCR (low)
46.1%
$0.0044
74.3%
$0.034
by category
Single value
33.5%
Transcription
68.9%
Structured JSON
71.7%
Text localization
0.0%
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
OCR (high)
54.5%
$0.021
76.0%
$0.059
by category
Single value
38.3%
Transcription
75.3%
Structured JSON
76.4%
Text localization
28.8%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Reasoning (low)
38.9%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 38.4 to 39.1
$0.0013
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
Reasoning (high)
57.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 59.6
$0.013
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047

Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Wonder: Overview

Mistral Large 4

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 Wonder

Muse Wonder is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on October 12, 2026 as the first step past the Muse Spark line on Meta's scaling ladder. It launched together with Muse Wonder Full, a larger configuration that is available only through Muse Code subscription plans, while Muse Wonder itself is served through the Meta Model API under the identifier muse-wonder-1.0. The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents as input and returns text, with a context window of 1,048,576 tokens and graded reasoning effort settings. Meta trained both models at its Prometheus data center on larger base models than Muse Spark 1.3, and attributes their gains on unfamiliar tasks to post-training that transfers more effectively from a stronger base.

Meta positions Muse Wonder for long-running personal and professional agents: it plans multi-step work, delegates to sub-agents, calls tools in parallel, recovers from errors, and operates browsers and desktop or mobile applications. Two training objectives shape this behaviour. Active Memory carries goals, constraints, and earlier decisions across conversations and retrieves the details relevant to the current step, and Active Focus keeps the model trying alternative approaches when a task gets difficult while asking for clarification before important actions. Visual inputs such as screenshots, charts, and video feed the same reasoning loop, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for grounding queries. Meta's model card lists visual and spatial reasoning, especially 3D tasks, as a known limitation and recommends validating performance for applications that depend on precise spatial understanding.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 56.8% (#40 of 62) 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 Wonder leads with 85.2% 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 $0.0033 per sample against $0.034. Mistral Large 4 is priced at $0.68 per 1M input tokens and $2.09 per 1M output; Muse Wonder is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Muse Wonder is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.7s per inference against 31.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.