Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Compare Muse Spark 1.2 and Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Qwen3.7 Plus on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 75.1% to 39.7%.
Overall, Muse Spark 1.2 averages 73.8% (#17 of 63) against 58.9% (#37 of 63) for Qwen3.7 Plus.
Qwen3.7 Plus is both cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.0083 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 11.5s per sample).
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.7 Plus Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 25, 2026
| Property | Muse Spark 1.2 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | — |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Unknown |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | See license terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $0.320 |
| Output $/1M | $4.25 | $1.28 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| object-detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Not listed |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Vision Language | Supported | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Not listed |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Not listed |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Not listed |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 73.8% | 58.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0083 | $0.0008 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.51s | 7.77s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 59.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2 | 60.1% |
| Object Detection (high) | 60.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7 | – |
| Counting (low) | 76.6% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7 | 50.0% |
| Counting (high) | 75.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 | – |
| Identification (low) | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 87.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5 | – |
| OCR (low) | 68.7% | 60.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 68.6% | 65.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 75.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5 | 39.7% |
| Reasoning (high) | 75.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2 | 68.2% |
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.7 Plus: 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.