Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B
Compare Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.5 27B 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 Qwen3.5 27B 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.1 leads 74.8% to 31.8%.
Overall, Muse Spark 1.1 averages 79.2% (#6 of 25) against 64.3% (#22 of 25) for Qwen3.5 27B.
Qwen3.5 27B is both cheaper ($0.0007 vs $0.0069 per sample) and faster (7.4s vs 11.4s per sample).
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026
| Property | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $0.195 |
| Output $/1M | $4.25 | $1.56 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| 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% | 64.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0069 | $0.0007 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.40s | 7.38s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 58.2% $0.010 | 58.8% $0.0013 |
| Counting | 75.7% $0.0043 | 54.0% $0.0002 |
| Identification | 87.5% $0.0032 | 78.1% $0.0002 |
| OCR | 92.5% $0.0063 | 84.5% $0.0009 |
| Data Extraction | 86.6% $0.0031 | 78.3% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (low) | 74.8% $0.0065 | 31.8% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (high) | 76.2% $0.013 | 61.6% $0.0065 |
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B: Overview
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.
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. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. 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. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. 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 Spark 1.1 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 79.2% (#6 of 25) against 64.3% (#22 of 25) 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 Spark 1.1 leads with 74.8% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0007 per sample against $0.0069. Muse Spark 1.1 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output; Qwen3.5 27B is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.56 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.5 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s 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.