Muse Spark Open vs Muse Wonder
Muse Wonder and Muse Spark Open score 78.8% vs 69.4% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#10 and #25 of 65 models), so Muse Wonder leads overall.
- Muse Wonder wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (85.2% vs 63.8%).
- Muse Spark Open is about 1/6 of the cost: $0.0059 vs $0.034 overall average cost per sample.
- Muse Spark Open is faster: 7.4s vs 11.7s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Muse Spark Open vs Muse Wonder live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Muse Spark Open vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Muse Spark Open vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated October 27, 2026
| Property | Muse Spark Open | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Meta |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 816B total / 42B active | undisclosed |
| License | Custom | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | See license terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $4.25 | $20.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 69.4% | 78.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0059 | $0.034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.37s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 57.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 58.2 | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 60.9% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 61.9 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 75.7% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 78.4 | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | 75.2% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 79.7 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 82.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 80.2% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4 | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 67.6% | 74.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 68.6% | 76.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 63.8% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.9 to 64.9 | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 65.1% ±3.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 68.2 | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
Muse Spark Open vs Muse Wonder: Overview
Muse Spark Open is an open-weight multimodal model released by Meta on October 15, 2026. Its sparse mixture-of-experts architecture has 816 billion total parameters and activates 42 billion per token. It accepts text, images, audio and video, produces text, and supports a context window of 1,048,576 tokens. Meta provides BF16 and NVFP4 checkpoints for self-hosting, alongside access through hosted inference partners.
The model is designed for coding, tool use and multi-step reasoning over long tasks. Its visual inputs support workflows involving screenshots, documents and other image content. Vision Evals measures its text understanding, counting, identification, reasoning and object detection at Low and High effort. The published weights use the custom Muse Model License, with commercial use subject to its terms and the accompanying usage policy.
Muse Wonder is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on October 12, 2026 as the first step past the Muse Spark line on Meta's scaling ladder. It launched together with Muse Wonder Full, a larger configuration that is available only through Muse Code subscription plans, while Muse Wonder itself is served through the Meta Model API under the identifier muse-wonder-1.0. The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents as input and returns text, with a context window of 1,048,576 tokens and graded reasoning effort settings. Meta trained both models at its Prometheus data center on larger base models than Muse Spark 1.3, and attributes their gains on unfamiliar tasks to post-training that transfers more effectively from a stronger base.
Meta positions Muse Wonder for long-running personal and professional agents: it plans multi-step work, delegates to sub-agents, calls tools in parallel, recovers from errors, and operates browsers and desktop or mobile applications. Two training objectives shape this behaviour. Active Memory carries goals, constraints, and earlier decisions across conversations and retrieves the details relevant to the current step, and Active Focus keeps the model trying alternative approaches when a task gets difficult while asking for clarification before important actions. Visual inputs such as screenshots, charts, and video feed the same reasoning loop, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for grounding queries. Meta's model card lists visual and spatial reasoning, especially 3D tasks, as a known limitation and recommends validating performance for applications that depend on precise spatial understanding.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#10 of 65) against 69.4% (#25 of 65) for Muse Spark Open. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Wonder leads with 85.2% against 63.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Muse Spark Open is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0059 per sample against $0.034. Muse Spark Open is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output; Muse Wonder is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Muse Spark Open is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s per inference against 11.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.