Roboflow

Muse Ember vs Qwen3.5-27B

Muse Ember averages 76.6% across five Vision Evals tasks and Qwen3.5-27B 64.1% across four (#16 and #34 of 67 models), so Muse Ember leads overall.

  • Muse Ember wins all 4 tasks both ran, with its widest lead on reasoning (78.2% vs 58.1%).
  • Muse Ember is about a fifth of the cost: $0.0009 vs $0.0043 overall average cost per sample.
  • Muse Ember is faster: 6.1s vs 80.4s per sample.

Compare Muse Ember vs Qwen3.5-27B 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 Qwen3.5-27B on Vision Evals

Score by taskMuse EmberQwen3.5-27B
Reasoning
78.2
58.1
Object Detection
63.8
50.5
Counting
79.7
67.6
Identification
91.7
80.2

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

Muse Ember vs Qwen3.5-27B Comparison Table

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

PropertyMuse EmberQwen3.5-27B
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateNov 2026Feb 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
ParametersUnknown27B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$0.260
Output $/1M$0.500$2.60
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%
64.1%*
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1664.1%FP860.9%AWQ-INT461.2%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0009$0.0043
Avg speed / sample6.08s80.37s
By task
Object Detection (low)
63.8%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.3 to 64.3
$0.0011
50.5%
±3.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.1 to 53.0
$0
Object Detection (high)
64.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5
$0.0017
–
Counting (low)
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.0006
67.6%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0011
–
Identification (low)
91.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0004
80.2%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 84.4
$0
Identification (high)
90.6%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0007
–
OCR (low)
69.5%
$0.0010
–
by category
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
85.1%
Text localization
35.3%
OCR (high)
70.5%
$0.0017
–
by category
Single value
63.0%
Transcription
90.2%
Structured JSON
87.2%
Text localization
35.9%
Reasoning (low)
78.2%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5
$0.0006
58.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 60.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
81.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4
$0.0013
–

Muse Ember vs Qwen3.5-27B: 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.

Qwen3.5-27B

Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.

Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Ember performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 76.6% (#16 of 67) against 64.1% (#34 of 67) for Qwen3.5-27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Ember leads with 78.2% against 58.1%. 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 $0.0043. 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 80.4s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.