Roboflow

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare Muse Spark 1.3 and Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 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.
QwenQwen3.8 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Data Extraction, where Muse Spark 1.3 leads 88.7% to 78.6%.

Overall, Muse Spark 1.3 averages 79.8% (#10 of 52) against 76.0% (#14 of 52) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0017 vs $0.0075 per sample), while Muse Spark 1.3 is faster (23.1s vs 29.1s per sample).

Muse Spark 1.3Qwen3.8 27B

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

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

PropertyMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.8 27B
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters27.78B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.425
Output $/1M$4.25$2.55
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%
76.0%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1675.1%FP875.1%AWQ-INT476.0%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0075$0.0017
Avg speed / sample23.14s29.13s
By task
Object Detection (low)
58.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4
$0.011
65.7%
$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
70.3%
$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
90.6%
$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
84.1%
$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
78.6%
$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
66.9%
$0
Reasoning (high)
73.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.012

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 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.

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.

Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.3 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#10 of 52) against 76.0% (#14 of 52) for Qwen3.8 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Data Extraction benchmark at low effort, Muse Spark 1.3 leads with 88.7% against 78.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0017 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 29.1s. 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.