Roboflow

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare Muse Spark 1.2 and Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 75.1% to 62.0%.

Overall, Muse Spark 1.2 averages 80.5% (#14 of 61) against 74.7% (#22 of 61) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.0072 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (7.8s vs 18.0s per sample).

Muse Spark 1.2Qwen3.8 27B

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026

PropertyMuse Spark 1.2Qwen3.8 27B
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters27.78B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.025
Output $/1M$4.25$4.35
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
object-detectionDemoDemo
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%
74.7%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1674.6%FP873.9%AWQ-INT474.7%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0072$0.0009
Avg speed / sample7.81s17.99s
By task
Object Detection (low)
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
65.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5
$0
Object Detection (high)
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
66.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8
$0
Counting (low)
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
64.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
68.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3
$0
Identification (low)
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
85.4%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6
$0
Identification (high)
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0
OCR (low)
93.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.9 to 94.1
$0.0079
92.2%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.1 to 93.4
$0
OCR (high)
92.9%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 93.6
$0.014
91.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 92.9
$0
Data Extraction (low)
89.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 89.7
$0.0034
78.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.3 to 79.4
$0
Data Extraction (high)
88.3%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0047
80.8%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0
Reasoning (low)
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
62.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2
$0
Reasoning (high)
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9
$0

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 27B: 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.

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.

Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.2 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 80.5% (#14 of 61) against 74.7% (#22 of 61) for Qwen3.8 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 75.1% against 62.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 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 18.0s. 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.