Roboflow

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Compare Muse Spark 1.2 and Qwen3.8 Max 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 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.

Models in this comparison

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 76.7% to 59.0%.

Overall, Muse Spark 1.2 averages 80.5% (#10 of 53) against 83.9% (#5 of 53) for Qwen3.8 Max.

Muse Spark 1.2 is both cheaper ($0.0072 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 17.3s per sample).

Muse Spark 1.2Qwen3.8 Max

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table

Evals updated September 5, 2026Pricing updated September 21, 2026

PropertyMuse Spark 1.2Qwen3.8 Max
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M984K
Parameters2.4T total, ~95B active
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25
Output $/1M$4.25
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%
83.9%
Avg cost / sample$0.0072$0.0074
Avg speed / sample7.81s17.25s
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)
93.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.9 to 94.1
$0.0079
93.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.9
$0.0056
OCR (high)
92.9%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 93.6
$0.014
91.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.7
$0.027
Data Extraction (low)
89.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 89.7
$0.0034
87.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6
$0.0029
Data Extraction (high)
88.3%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0047
89.3%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7
$0.0040
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. 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 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. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. 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 slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Qwen3.8 Max averages 83.9% (#5 of 53) against 80.5% (#10 of 53) 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.

Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0072 per sample against $0.0074. 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 17.3s. 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.