Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 Max
Compare Muse Spark 1.3 and Qwen3.8 Max 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 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 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 76.7% to 58.6%.
Overall, Muse Spark 1.3 averages 79.8% (#10 of 52) against 83.9% (#4 of 52) for Qwen3.8 Max.
Qwen3.8 Max is both cheaper ($0.0074 vs $0.0075 per sample) and faster (17.3s vs 23.1s per sample).
Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table
Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 3, 2026
| Property | Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 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 | 79.8% | 83.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0075 | $0.0074 |
| Avg speed / sample | 23.14s | 17.25s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 58.6% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4 | 76.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.1 |
| Object Detection (high) | 56.6% ±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3 | 78.4% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 78.9 |
| Counting (low) | 74.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0 | 81.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 |
| Counting (high) | 75.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7 | 81.1% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 81.1 |
| 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 | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 91.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.6 | 93.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.9 |
| 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 90.7 to 91.7 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 88.7% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7 | 87.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 87.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6 | 89.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7 |
| Reasoning (low) | 73.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 | 75.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 77.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 73.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2 | 80.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.2 to 82.1 |
Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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 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, Qwen3.8 Max performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.9% (#4 of 52) against 79.8% (#10 of 52) for Muse Spark 1.3. 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 at low effort, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 76.7% against 58.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0074 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 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.
Qwen3.8 Max is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 17.3s 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.