Roboflow

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Compare Muse Spark 1.3 and Qwen3.7 Flash 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 Qwen3.7 Flash 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.
QwenQwen3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.7 Flash 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 34.4%.

Overall, Muse Spark 1.3 averages 79.8% (#10 of 52) against 61.5% (#44 of 52) for Qwen3.7 Flash.

Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0075 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 23.1s per sample).

Muse Spark 1.3Qwen3.7 Flash

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.7 Flash
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.030
Output $/1M$4.25$0.130
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%
61.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0075$0.0001
Avg speed / sample23.14s6.28s
By task
Object Detection (low)
58.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4
$0.011
42.8%
$0.0001
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
46.0%
<$0.0001
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%
<$0.0001
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
84.1%
$0.0001
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
77.3%
<$0.0001
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
34.4%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
73.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.012
61.6%
$0.0005

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.7 Flash: 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.

Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.

Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.

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 61.5% (#44 of 52) for Qwen3.7 Flash. 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 34.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.0075. Muse Spark 1.3 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Flash is priced at $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.13 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s per inference against 23.1s. 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.