Roboflow

Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.5-27B

Compare Muse Wonder and Qwen3.5-27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, and Image Captioning.

Compare Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.5-27B 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 Wonder
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5-27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.5-27B on Vision Evals

Muse Wonder scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 58.1%.

Overall, Muse Wonder averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 64.1% (#29 of 62) for Qwen3.5-27B.

Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper ($0.0043 vs $0.034 per sample), while Muse Wonder is faster (11.7s vs 80.4s per sample).

Muse WonderQwen3.5-27B

Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.5-27B Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026

PropertyMuse WonderQwen3.5-27B
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Feb 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parametersundisclosed27B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$4.00$0.260
Output $/1M$20.00$2.60
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
78.8%
64.1%
4/5 tasks
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1664.1%FP860.9%AWQ-INT461.2%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.034$0.0043
Avg speed / sample11.68s80.37s
By task
Object Detection (low)
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
50.5%
±3.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.1 to 53.0
$0
Object Detection (high)
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
–
Counting (low)
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
67.6%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
–
Identification (low)
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
80.2%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 84.4
$0
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
–
OCR (low)
74.3%
$0.034
–
by category
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
OCR (high)
76.0%
$0.059
–
by category
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Reasoning (low)
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
58.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 60.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047
–

Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.5-27B: Overview

Muse Wonder

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.

Qwen3.5-27B

Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.

Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 64.1% (#29 of 62) for Qwen3.5-27B. 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 Wonder leads with 85.2% against 58.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0043 per sample against $0.034. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Muse Wonder is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.7s per inference against 80.4s. 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.