Roboflow

Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Compare Muse Wonder and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side.

Compare Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Flash on Vision Evals

Muse Wonder scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 35.1%.

Overall, Muse Wonder averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 59.7% (#34 of 62) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (7.3s vs 11.7s per sample).

Muse WonderQwen3.8 Flash

Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyMuse WonderQwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationMetaQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parametersundisclosed125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsSee license terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$4.00$0.150
Output $/1M$20.00$0.470
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%
59.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.034$0.0004
Avg speed / sample11.68s7.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
59.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
67.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5
$0.0010
Counting (low)
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
56.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5
$0.0002
Counting (high)
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9
$0.0008
Identification (low)
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0001
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0003
OCR (low)
74.3%
$0.034
58.9%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
83.0%
Structured JSON
73.2%
Text localization
29.4%
OCR (high)
76.0%
$0.059
62.9%
$0.0008
by category
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Single value
51.3%
Transcription
87.3%
Structured JSON
79.3%
Text localization
37.4%
Reasoning (low)
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
35.1%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047
69.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2
$0.0011

Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.8 Flash: 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 Flash

Qwen3.8-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.

Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 59.7% (#34 of 62) for Qwen3.8 Flash. 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 35.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.034. Muse Wonder is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.47 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.3s per inference against 11.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.