Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Compare Muse Spark 1.3 and Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.3 leads 73.3% to 35.1%.
Overall, Muse Spark 1.3 averages 79.8% (#10 of 52) against 68.8% (#26 of 52) for Qwen3.8 Flash.
Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0075 per sample) and faster (6.5s vs 23.1s per sample).
Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 3, 2026
| Property | Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings) | |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $0.150 |
| Output $/1M | $4.25 | $0.470 |
| 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 | 79.8% | 68.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0075 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 23.14s | 6.48s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 58.6% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4 | 59.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8 |
| Object Detection (high) | 56.6% ±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3 | 67.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5 |
| Counting (low) | 74.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 | 56.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5 |
| Counting (high) | 75.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7 | 68.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9 |
| Identification (low) | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 | 86.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 91.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.6 | 88.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 88.9 |
| OCR (high) | 86.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.2 to 90.4 | 91.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.8 to 91.9 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 88.7% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7 | 84.9% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 86.6 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 87.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6 | 84.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 85.6 |
| Reasoning (low) | 73.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 | 35.1% ±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 73.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 | 69.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2 |
Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 Flash: Overview
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-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.
Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.
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 68.8% (#26 of 52) for Qwen3.8 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 35.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0075. Muse Spark 1.3 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.47 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.5s 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.