Roboflow

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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.7 Plus
Run to compare this model.

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 1.2Qwen3.7 Plus

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.7 Plus Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyMuse Spark 1.2Qwen3.7 Plus
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodal—
Release DateAug 2026Jun 2026
Context Window1.0M—
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryUnknown
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsSee license terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.320
Output $/1M$4.25$1.28
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
ClassificationDemoDemo
object-detectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedNot listed
Document Question AnsweringSupportedNot listed
Image TaggingSupportedNot listed
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedNot listed
Vision LanguageSupportedNot listed
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedNot listed
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedNot listed
Multimodal VisionSupportedNot 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 / sample11.51s7.77s
By task
Object Detection (low)
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
60.1%
$0.0013
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
50.0%
$0.0004
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
84.4%
$0.0003
Identification (high)
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
–
OCR (low)
68.7%
$0.0086
60.3%
$0.0009
by category
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
Single value
53.5%
Transcription
86.7%
Structured JSON
75.8%
Text localization
23.1%
OCR (high)
68.6%
$0.014
65.5%
$0.0042
by category
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Single value
58.3%
Transcription
89.7%
Structured JSON
81.3%
Text localization
30.4%
Reasoning (low)
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
39.7%
$0.0003
Reasoning (high)
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012
68.2%
$0.0043

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.7 Plus: 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.

Qwen3.7 Plus
No description available