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.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
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
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Muse Ember vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Muse Ember | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | undisclosed |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.500 | $20.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| 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 / sample | 6.08s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 63.8% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.3 to 64.3 | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 64.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 91.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 90.6% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 69.5% | 74.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 70.5% | 76.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 78.2% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5 | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4 | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
Muse Ember vs Muse Wonder: Overview
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 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.