Roboflow

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Compare Muse Spark 1.2 and Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Flash 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 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Flash 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 35.1%.

Overall, Muse Spark 1.2 averages 73.8% (#17 of 63) against 59.7% (#35 of 63) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0083 per sample) and faster (7.3s vs 11.5s per sample).

Muse Spark 1.2Qwen3.8 Flash

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyMuse Spark 1.2Qwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknown125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsSee license terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.150
Output $/1M$4.25$0.470
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
73.8%
59.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0083$0.0004
Avg speed / sample11.51s7.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
59.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
67.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5
$0.0010
Counting (low)
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
56.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5
$0.0002
Counting (high)
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9
$0.0008
Identification (low)
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0038
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0001
Identification (high)
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0003
OCR (low)
68.7%
$0.0086
58.9%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
83.0%
Structured JSON
73.2%
Text localization
29.4%
OCR (high)
68.6%
$0.014
62.9%
$0.0008
by category
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Single value
51.3%
Transcription
87.3%
Structured JSON
79.3%
Text localization
37.4%
Reasoning (low)
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
35.1%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012
69.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2
$0.0011

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Flash: 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 Flash

Qwen3.8-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.

Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.