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.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals
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
| Property | Muse Spark 1.2 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 984K |
| Parameters | Unknown | 2.4T total, ~95B active |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | No published price |
| Output $/1M | $4.25 | No published price |
| Vision 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 / sample | 11.51s | 18.95s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 59.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.1 to 60.2 | 76.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.1 |
| Object Detection (high) | 60.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.2 to 60.7 | 78.4% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 78.9 |
| Counting (low) | 76.6% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 79.7 | 81.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 |
| Counting (high) | 75.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 | 81.1% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 87.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 87.5 | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 68.7% | 74.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 68.6% | 71.8% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 75.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.5 | 75.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 77.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 75.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.2 | 80.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.2 to 82.1 |
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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. Multimodal use cases documented for the family include visual-to-code generation and detailed image and video captioning.
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.