Roboflow

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.5-27B

Compare Muse Spark 1.3 and Qwen3.5-27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, and Image Captioning.

Compare Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.5-27B 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 1.3
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5-27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.5-27B on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.3 leads 73.3% to 58.3%.

Overall, Muse Spark 1.3 averages 79.8% (#10 of 52) against 71.4% (#21 of 52) for Qwen3.5-27B.

Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper ($0.0041 vs $0.0075 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.3 is faster (23.1s vs 77.9s per sample).

Muse Spark 1.3Qwen3.5-27B

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.5-27B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 3, 2026

PropertyMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.5-27B
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Feb 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters27B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.195
Output $/1M$4.25$1.56
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
79.8%
71.4%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1671.4%FP870.9%AWQ-INT469.4%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0075$0.0041
Avg speed / sample23.14s77.88s
By task
Object Detection (low)
58.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4
$0.011
52.4%
$0
Object Detection (high)
56.6%
±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3
$0.017
Counting (low)
74.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0049
67.6%
$0
Counting (high)
75.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7
$0.0094
Identification (low)
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0036
84.4%
$0
Identification (high)
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0063
OCR (low)
91.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.6
$0.0083
83.0%
$0
OCR (high)
86.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.2 to 90.4
$0.015
Data Extraction (low)
88.7%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0031
82.7%
$0
Data Extraction (high)
87.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6
$0.0044
Reasoning (low)
73.3%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.0064
58.3%
$0
Reasoning (high)
73.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.012

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.5-27B: Overview

Muse Spark 1.3

Muse Spark 1.3 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs and the fourth Muse Spark release in five months, arriving on September 2, 2026. It takes text, images, video, and document files as input and returns text, and it operates over a context window of 1,048,576 tokens. Meta trains the model for long-horizon agentic work, so it carries accumulated context and prior tool results forward across many turns, reconciles messy or conflicting inputs, and asks for clarification when a task is underspecified. Visual inputs such as screenshots and video clips feed a reasoning loop that runs against a real execution environment rather than a scripted sequence of steps.

The model exposes graded reasoning effort settings. An xhigh configuration is generally available at launch, while a max reasoning configuration aimed at harder reasoning and agentic problems arrives after further safety testing. Artificial Analysis measures Muse Spark 1.3 (max) at 62 on its Intelligence Index and the xhigh configuration at 61, with agentic tool-use evaluations driving most of the gain over Muse Spark 1.2; max reaches 52% on Tau3-Bench Banking by spending more turns and reasoning tokens than xhigh. Prior Muse Spark versions emit bounding box coordinates, transcriptions, and structured field extractions from images on Roboflow Vision Evals.

Qwen3.5-27B

Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.

Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.3 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#10 of 52) against 71.4% (#21 of 52) for Qwen3.5-27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Spark 1.3 leads with 73.3% against 58.3%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0041 per sample against $0.0075. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Muse Spark 1.3 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 23.1s per inference against 77.9s. 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 object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.