Roboflow

Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare Muse Wonder and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.

Compare Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.8 27B 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.

Models in this comparison

Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

Muse Wonder scores higher on 3 of the 4 Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 62.0%.

Overall, Muse Wonder averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 69.5% (#22 of 62) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.034 per sample), while Muse Wonder is faster (11.7s vs 18.0s per sample).

Muse WonderQwen3.8 27B

Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

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

PropertyMuse WonderQwen3.8 27B
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parametersundisclosed27.78B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$4.00$0.040
Output $/1M$20.00$2.30
Vision Tasks
CaptioningSupportedDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationSupportedDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionSupportedDemo
OCRSupportedDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringSupportedDemo
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%
69.5%
4/5 tasks
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1669.5%FP868.7%AWQ-INT469.5%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.034$0.0009
Avg speed / sample11.68s17.99s
By task
Object Detection (low)
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
65.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5
$0
Object Detection (high)
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
66.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8
$0
Counting (low)
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
64.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
68.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3
$0
Identification (low)
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
85.4%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6
$0
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0
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
62.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2
$0
Reasoning (high)
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9
$0

Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.8 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.

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.

Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the 4 vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 69.5% (#22 of 62) for Qwen3.8 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 62.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 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 18.0s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.