Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.5 27B
Compare Muse Spark 1.2 and Qwen3.5 27B 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 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 1.2 vs Qwen3.5 27B on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 74.8% to 31.8%.
Overall, Muse Spark 1.2 averages 80.4% (#5 of 25) against 64.3% (#22 of 25) for Qwen3.5 27B.
Qwen3.5 27B is both cheaper ($0.0007 vs $0.0071 per sample) and faster (7.4s vs 7.8s per sample).
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 7, 2026
| Property | Muse Spark 1.2 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 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 | 80.4% | 64.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0071 | $0.0007 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.78s | 7.38s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 60.1% $0.0094 | 58.8% $0.0013 |
| Counting | 74.3% $0.0049 | 54.0% $0.0002 |
| Identification | 90.6% $0.0038 | 78.1% $0.0002 |
| OCR | 93.8% $0.0079 | 84.5% $0.0009 |
| Data Extraction | 88.7% $0.0033 | 78.3% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (low) | 74.8% $0.0074 | 31.8% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (high) | 76.2% $0.012 | 61.6% $0.0065 |
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.5 27B: 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.
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 1.2 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 80.4% (#5 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 1.2 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 $0.0071. Muse Spark 1.2 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 7.8s. 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.