Roboflow

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B

Compare Muse Spark 1.2 and Qwen3.5 35B A3B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and OCR.

Compare Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B live

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

Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.

Open OCR in the full playground
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5 35B A3B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B 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 75.1% to 54.1%.

Overall, Muse Spark 1.2 averages 80.5% (#10 of 53) against 69.4% (#26 of 53) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B.

Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper ($0.0016 vs $0.0072 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (7.8s vs 31.9s per sample).

Muse Spark 1.2Qwen3.5 35B A3B

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 5, 2026Pricing updated September 21, 2026

PropertyMuse Spark 1.2Qwen3.5 35B A3B
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Feb 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters35B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.313
Output $/1M$4.25$1.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
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
80.5%
69.4%
Quantizationsself-hosted
FP869.0%GPTQ-INT469.4%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0072$0.0016
Avg speed / sample7.81s31.88s
By task
Object Detection (low)
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
52.9%
±3.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.5 to 55.9
$0
Object Detection (high)
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
Counting (low)
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
62.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9
$0
Counting (high)
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
Identification (low)
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0
Identification (high)
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
OCR (low)
93.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.9 to 94.1
$0.0079
83.0%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.7 to 83.5
$0
OCR (high)
92.9%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 93.6
$0.014
Data Extraction (low)
89.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 89.7
$0.0034
83.5%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 85.6
$0
Data Extraction (high)
88.3%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0047
Reasoning (low)
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
54.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 53.6 to 54.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B: Overview

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.

Qwen3.5 35B A3B

The Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is a native vision-language model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team, released on February 24, 2026, as a high-efficiency entry in the Qwen 3.5 family. It utilizes a sophisticated hybrid architecture that integrates Gated Delta Networks with a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system. While the model houses 35 billion total parameters, its routing mechanism activates only 8 routed experts and 1 shared expert per token, totaling approximately 3 billion active parameters. This design achieves cross-generational parity with the previous flagship Qwen3-235B dense model, delivering comparable reasoning and multimodal intelligence with significantly reduced inference latency and compute requirements. Available under the Apache 2.0 license, it is released in both base and instruction-tuned variants for seamless integration with open-source stacks like vLLM and Hugging Face Transformers.

Designed for the emerging era of agentic AI, the model utilizes a unified multimodal foundation built through early-fusion training. This approach allows it to outperform the prior Qwen3-VL series in spatial grounding, document analysis, and UI/GUI interaction. It features a native context window of 262,144 tokens, which is extensible up to 1,010,000 tokensvia RoPE scaling, and provides global support for 201 languages and dialects. This combination of a compact active parameter count and frontier-level visual comprehension makes it a versatile tool for developers requiring a balance of high-throughput speed and sophisticated visual reasoning for long-context workflows.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.2 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 80.5% (#10 of 53) against 69.4% (#26 of 53) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B. 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 75.1% against 54.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0016 per sample against $0.0072. 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 31.9s. 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.