Roboflow

Muse Spark 1.1 vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare Muse Spark 1.1 and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR, Classification, Image Captioning, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare Muse Spark 1.1 vs Muse Spark 1.2 live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
MetaMuse Spark 1.1
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Spark 1.1 vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Identification, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 90.6% to 87.5%.

Overall, Muse Spark 1.1 averages 79.2% (#6 of 25) against 80.4% (#5 of 25) for Muse Spark 1.2.

Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper ($0.0069 vs $0.0071 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (7.8s vs 11.4s per sample).

Muse Spark 1.1Muse Spark 1.2

Muse Spark 1.1 vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 7, 2026

PropertyMuse Spark 1.1Muse Spark 1.2
OrganizationMetaMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$1.25
Output $/1M$4.25$4.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
79.2%
80.4%
Avg cost / sample$0.0069$0.0071
Avg speed / sample11.40s7.78s
By task
Object Detection
58.2%
$0.010
60.1%
$0.0094
Counting
75.7%
$0.0043
74.3%
$0.0049
Identification
87.5%
$0.0032
90.6%
$0.0038
OCR
92.5%
$0.0063
93.8%
$0.0079
Data Extraction
86.6%
$0.0031
88.7%
$0.0033
Reasoning (low)
74.8%
$0.0065
74.8%
$0.0074
Reasoning (high)
76.2%
$0.013
76.2%
$0.012

Muse Spark 1.1 vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

Muse Spark 1.1

Muse Spark 1.1 is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released on July 9, 2026, as a significant upgrade to the original Muse Spark. The model accepts text, image, video, PDF, and audio as input and produces text output. It operates with a 1-million-token context window (1,048,576 tokens per the Meta Model API documentation) and is designed specifically for agentic tasks that require planning, tool use, computer use, and multi-agent orchestration. The model runs in a "Thinking" mode, where adjustable reasoning effort is applied before generating a response. It can function both as a main agent gathering context, forming plans, and delegating to parallel subagents and as a subagent that adheres to assigned tasks and escalates when needed. It is trained to decide autonomously when to write automation scripts versus interact directly with a user interface.

Muse Spark 1.1 supports a range of multimodal capabilities including visual perception, image and video captioning, visual-to-code generation, and document analysis. The model was evaluated under Meta's Advanced AI Scaling Framework across frontier risk categories including chemical and biological threats, cybersecurity, and loss-of-control scenarios. Parameter count, architecture details, and training data composition are not publicly disclosed. The model is proprietary and closed-weight, accessible to consumers through the Meta AI app and to developers via the Meta Model API, which launched in public preview alongside this release.

Muse Spark 1.2

Muse Spark 1.2 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released as a coding-focused update to Muse Spark 1.1. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents and returns text, with a context window of roughly one million tokens that allows whole repositories, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request. The model thinks before answering, and the amount of reasoning effort it spends is configurable per request. Alongside its visual and document understanding, it supports structured output and parallel function calling, and it is designed to operate either as a planning agent that delegates work or as a subagent executing tasks in parallel.

Training for version 1.2 scaled up compute on coding tasks and widened the diversity of training environments, concentrating on long-horizon work such as whole-repository generation, large end-to-end projects, and automated research. Part of the training data was self-generated, with Muse Spark 1.1 producing coding environments and instruction-following templates and grading candidate solutions against them. The model was co-trained with the Muse Code terminal agent, incorporating rejection-sampled harness trajectories and that toolset. Meta reports 82.9 percent on Terminal-Bench 2.1, an improvement of 6.7 points over Muse Spark 1.1. Multimodal use cases documented for the family include visual-to-code generation and detailed image and video captioning.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.2 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 80.4% (#5 of 25) against 79.2% (#6 of 25) for Muse Spark 1.1. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Identification benchmark, Muse Spark 1.2 leads with 90.6% against 87.5%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0069 per sample against $0.0071. Muse Spark 1.1 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.2 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Muse Spark 1.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s per inference against 11.4s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for OCR and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.