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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
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 77.1% to 60.1%.
Overall, Muse Spark 1.2 averages 80.4% (#5 of 25) against 84.0% (#2 of 25) for Qwen3.8 Max.
Muse Spark 1.2 is both cheaper ($0.0071 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 18.0s per sample).
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table
Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 7, 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 | 2.4T total, ~95B active | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $4.25 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 80.4% | 84.0% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0071 | $0.0074 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.78s | 18.02s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 60.1% $0.0094 | 77.1% $0.013 |
| Counting | 74.3% $0.0049 | 82.4% $0.0046 |
| Identification | 90.6% $0.0038 | 90.6% $0.0027 |
| OCR | 93.8% $0.0079 | 92.8% $0.0056 |
| Data Extraction | 88.7% $0.0033 | 87.6% $0.0029 |
| Reasoning (low) | 74.8% $0.0074 | 73.5% $0.0047 |
| Reasoning (high) | 76.2% $0.012 | 80.8% $0.011 |
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. 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 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, Muse Spark 1.2 performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the six vision tasks and averages 80.4% (#5 of 25) against 84.0% (#2 of 25) for Qwen3.8 Max. 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, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 77.1% against 60.1%. 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 $0.0071 per sample against $0.0074. Muse Spark 1.2 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Max is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. 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 18.0s. 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.