Roboflow

Muse Ember vs Muse Wonder

Muse Wonder and Muse Ember score 78.8% vs 76.6% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#11 and #16 of 67 models), so Muse Wonder leads overall.

  • Muse Wonder wins 4 of the 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (85.2% vs 78.2%).
  • Muse Ember is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0009 vs $0.034 overall average cost per sample.
  • Muse Ember is faster: 6.1s vs 11.7s per sample.

Compare Muse Ember 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.

Muse Ember vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals

Score by taskMuse EmberMuse Wonder
Reasoning
78.2
85.2
OCR
69.5
74.3
Counting
79.7
76.6
Object Detection
63.8
65.1
Identification
91.7
92.7

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

Muse Ember vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table

Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026

PropertyMuse EmberMuse Wonder
OrganizationMetaMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateNov 2026Oct 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknownundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$4.00
Output $/1M$0.500$20.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningSupportedDemo
ClassificationSupportedDemo
Object DetectionSupportedDemo
OCRSupportedDemo
Visual Question AnsweringSupportedDemo
Both support 5 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
76.6%
78.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0009$0.034
Avg speed / sample6.08s11.68s
By task
Object Detection (low)
63.8%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.3 to 64.3
$0.0011
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
Object Detection (high)
64.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5
$0.0017
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
Counting (low)
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.0006
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
Counting (high)
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0011
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
Identification (low)
91.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0004
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
Identification (high)
90.6%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0007
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
OCR (low)
69.5%
$0.0010
74.3%
$0.034
by category
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
85.1%
Text localization
35.3%
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
OCR (high)
70.5%
$0.0017
76.0%
$0.059
by category
Single value
63.0%
Transcription
90.2%
Structured JSON
87.2%
Text localization
35.9%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Reasoning (low)
78.2%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5
$0.0006
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
Reasoning (high)
81.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4
$0.0013
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047

Muse Ember vs Muse Wonder: Overview

Muse Ember

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.

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 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#11 of 67) against 76.6% (#16 of 67) for Muse Ember. 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 78.2%. 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 $0.034. Muse Ember is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 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 Ember is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.1s per inference against 11.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.