Muse Spark 1.2 vs Muse Wonder
Compare Muse Spark 1.2 and Muse Wonder side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.
Compare Muse Spark 1.2 vs Muse Wonder 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 1.2 vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals
Muse Wonder scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 75.1%.
Overall, Muse Spark 1.2 averages 73.8% (#17 of 63) against 78.8% (#9 of 63) for Muse Wonder.
Muse Spark 1.2 is both cheaper ($0.0083 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (11.5s vs 11.7s per sample).
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 22, 2026
| Property | Muse Spark 1.2 | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 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 | $1.25 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $4.25 | $20.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 73.8% | 78.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0083 | $0.034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.51s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 59.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2 | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 60.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 76.6% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7 | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | 75.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 87.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5 | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 68.7% | 74.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 68.6% | 76.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 75.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5 | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 75.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2 | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Muse Wonder: Overview
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.
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.