Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.5 9b
Compare Muse Wonder and Qwen3.5 9b side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.5 9b live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.5 9b 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 45.9%.
Overall, Muse Wonder averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 56.0% (#41 of 62) for Qwen3.5 9b.
Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper ($0.0021 vs $0.034 per sample), while Muse Wonder is faster (11.7s vs 41.4s per sample).
Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.5 9b Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Muse Wonder | Qwen3.5 9b |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | undisclosed | 9B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $4.00 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | $20.00 | $0.150 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 78.8% | 56.0% 4/5 tasks |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.034 | $0.0021 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.68s | 41.36s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 | 38.1% ±5.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 33.5 to 44.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 | – |
| Counting (low) | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 | 56.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1 |
| Counting (high) | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 | – |
| Identification (low) | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 | 83.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 |
| Identification (high) | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 | – |
| OCR (low) | 74.3% | – |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | 76.0% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 | 45.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 44.4 to 47.7 |
| Reasoning (high) | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 | – |
Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.5 9b: Overview
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.
Qwen3.5-9B is a 9-billion-parameter multimodal foundation model developed by Alibaba Cloud's Qwen team, released on March 2, 2026 as part of the Qwen3.5 model family. Designed for efficient multimodal reasoning and long-context language tasks, it notably outperforms the older Qwen3-30B, a model more than three times its size, on key benchmarks including GPQA Diamond, IFEval, and LongBench.
The model supports vision-language inputs through an early-fusion multimodal architecture built on a dense hybrid foundation of Gated Delta Networks and Gated Attention. It can also operate in a text-only mode by skipping the vision encoder during inference. It provides a 262,144-token context window (extensible to ~1M tokens via YaRN) and is released under the Apache License 2.0. Within the current AI landscape, Qwen3.5-9B offers a strong balance of capability and efficiency, making it well-suited for multimodal assistants, document analysis, long-context reasoning, and developer-deployed agentic systems.
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 56.0% (#41 of 62) for Qwen3.5 9b. 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 45.9%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0021 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 41.4s. 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 open prompts and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.