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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on 3 of the 4 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 73.8% (#17 of 63) against 69.5% (#23 of 63) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.0083 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.2 is faster (11.5s vs 18.0s per sample).
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026
| Property | Muse Spark 1.2 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | Unknown | 27.78B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $0.240 |
| Output $/1M | $4.25 | $2.20 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| object-detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 73.8% | 69.5% 4/5 tasks |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0083 | $0.0009 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.51s | 17.99s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 59.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2 | 65.7% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5 |
| Object Detection (high) | 60.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7 | 66.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8 |
| Counting (low) | 76.6% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7 | 64.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9 |
| Counting (high) | 75.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 | 68.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3 |
| Identification (low) | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 | 85.4% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 87.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5 | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 68.7% | – |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | 68.6% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 75.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5 | 62.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 75.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9 |
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 27B: 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.
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.