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 4 vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Mistral Large 4 | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Mistral | Meta |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 1.05T total, 49B active | undisclosed |
| License | Custom | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | See license terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.680 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $2.09 | $20.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Supported |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Supported |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Supported |
| 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 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 56.8% | 78.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0033 | $0.034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 31.23s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 59.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.0 | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 50.2% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.0 to 53.0 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 54.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 55.4 | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | 63.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| 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 | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 46.1% | 74.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 54.5% | 76.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 38.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 38.4 to 39.1 | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 57.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 59.6 | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Wonder: 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 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.