Roboflow

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.5 9b

Compare Muse Spark 1.2 and Qwen3.5 9b 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 9b 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 9b
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.5 9b 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 47.7%.

Overall, Muse Spark 1.2 averages 80.5% (#10 of 53) against 64.3% (#40 of 53) for Qwen3.5 9b.

Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper ($0.0017 vs $0.0072 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (7.8s vs 33.6s per sample).

Muse Spark 1.2Qwen3.5 9b

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.5 9b Comparison Table

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

PropertyMuse Spark 1.2Qwen3.5 9b
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Mar 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters9B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.100
Output $/1M$4.25$0.150
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%
64.3%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1664.8%FP864.4%AWQ-INT464.3%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0072$0.0017
Avg speed / sample7.81s33.65s
By task
Object Detection (low)
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
46.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.8 to 47.0
$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
51.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 54.0
$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
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$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
77.5%
±7.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.4 to 83.0
$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
78.7%
±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 80.4
$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
47.7%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 50.3
$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 9b: 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 9b

Qwen3.5-9B is a 9-billion-parameter multimodal foundation model developed by Alibaba Cloud's Qwen team, released on March 2, 2026 as part of the Qwen3.5 model family. Designed for efficient multimodal reasoning and long-context language tasks, it notably outperforms the older Qwen3-30B, a model more than three times its size, on key benchmarks including GPQA Diamond, IFEval, and LongBench.

The model supports vision-language inputs through an early-fusion multimodal architecture built on a dense hybrid foundation of Gated Delta Networks and Gated Attention. It can also operate in a text-only mode by skipping the vision encoder during inference. It provides a 262,144-token context window (extensible to ~1M tokens via YaRN) and is released under the Apache License 2.0. Within the current AI landscape, Qwen3.5-9B offers a strong balance of capability and efficiency, making it well-suited for multimodal assistants, document analysis, long-context reasoning, and developer-deployed agentic systems.

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 64.3% (#40 of 53) for Qwen3.5 9b. 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 47.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0017 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 33.6s. 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.