Roboflow

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max and Muse Spark 1.2 score 79.3% vs 73.8% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#9 and #18 of 65 models), so Qwen3.8 Max leads overall.

  • Qwen3.8 Max wins 4 of the 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (76.7% vs 59.0%).
  • Muse Spark 1.2 is faster: 11.5s vs 18.9s per sample.

Compare Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max 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 Max
Run to compare this model.

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals

Score by taskMuse Spark 1.2Qwen3.8 Max
Object Detection
59.0
76.7
OCR
68.7
74.0
Counting
76.6
81.1
Identification
89.6
88.5
Reasoning
75.1
75.9

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table

Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated November 6, 2026

PropertyMuse Spark 1.2Qwen3.8 Max
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M984K
ParametersUnknown2.4T total, ~95B active
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25No published price
Output $/1M$4.25No published price
Vision Tasks
Both support 10 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
73.8%
79.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0083$0.0080
Avg speed / sample11.51s18.95s
By task
Object Detection (low)
59.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2
$0.0096
76.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.1
$0.012
Object Detection (high)
60.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7
$0.014
78.4%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 78.9
$0.030
Counting (low)
76.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7
$0.0050
81.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0046
Counting (high)
75.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0082
81.1%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 81.1
$0.0091
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
$0.0027
Identification (high)
87.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5
$0.0062
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0037
OCR (low)
68.7%
$0.0086
74.0%
$0.0077
by category
Single value
60.4%
Transcription
89.3%
Structured JSON
87.0%
Text localization
31.5%
Single value
63.9%
Transcription
95.2%
Structured JSON
85.4%
Text localization
59.0%
OCR (high)
68.6%
$0.014
71.8%
$0.028
by category
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
85.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
30.7%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
94.8%
Structured JSON
81.6%
Text localization
59.6%
Reasoning (low)
75.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5
$0.0073
75.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 77.5
$0.0048
Reasoning (high)
75.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2
$0.012
80.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.2 to 82.1
$0.011

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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. Multimodal use cases documented for the family include visual-to-code generation and detailed image and video captioning.

Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.

For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Max performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 79.3% (#9 of 65) against 73.8% (#18 of 65) for Muse Spark 1.2. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 76.7% against 59.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0080 per sample against $0.0083. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Muse Spark 1.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.5s per inference against 18.9s. 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.