Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max
Compare Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.8 Max 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 Qwen3.8 Max 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 Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 77.1% to 58.2%.
Overall, Muse Spark 1.1 averages 79.2% (#5 of 24) against 84.0% (#2 of 24) for Qwen3.8 Max.
Muse Spark 1.1 is both cheaper ($0.0069 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (11.4s vs 18.0s per sample).
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table
Evals updated August 3, 2026Pricing updated August 5, 2026
| Property | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 984K |
| Parameters | 2.4T total, ~95B active | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $4.25 | $6.00 |
| 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% | 84.0% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0069 | $0.0074 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.40s | 18.02s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 58.2% $0.010 | 77.1% $0.013 |
| Counting | 75.7% $0.0043 | 82.4% $0.0046 |
| Identification | 87.5% $0.0032 | 90.6% $0.0027 |
| OCR | 92.5% $0.0063 | 92.8% $0.0056 |
| Data Extraction | 86.6% $0.0031 | 87.6% $0.0029 |
| Reasoning (low) | 74.8% $0.0065 | 73.5% $0.0047 |
| Reasoning (high) | 76.2% $0.013 | 80.8% $0.011 |
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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.
Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.
For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Max performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 84.0% (#2 of 24) against 79.2% (#5 of 24) 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 Object Detection benchmark, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 77.1% against 58.2%. 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 $0.0074. Muse Spark 1.1 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Max is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Muse Spark 1.1 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.4s per inference against 18.0s. 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.