Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-06 vs Muse Image: which should you choose in 2026?
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-06 (by Google) and Muse Image (by Meta) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Choose Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-06 if…
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
Choose Muse Image if…
- • you need image generation
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-06 | Muse Image |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | 53.6% www.swebench.com | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
30 problems from the 2025 American Invitational Mathematics Examination testing olympiad-level math reasoning Accuracy % | 35.6 matharena.ai | — |
Comprehensive comparison of AI models across intelligence, price, speed, and latency Intelligence Index | — | |
Challenging math contest benchmark featuring the most difficult olympiad-level problems Accuracy % | 35.6 matharena.ai | — |
Tests AI models ability to manage a simulated vending machine business over a year Money Balance ($) | 573.64 andonlabs.com | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score for generated images | — | 1281 ±6 |
Benchmark sources
- Arena AI leaderboard
- SWE-Bench Verified
- AIME 2025
- Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
- MathArena Apex
- Vending-Bench 2
Reviewed evidence last updated 2025-12-28. Arena data last refreshed Aug 28, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-06 | Muse Image |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Meta | |
| API provider | Meta | |
| Input context | 1,048,576 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Maximum output | 65,535 tokens | 58,982 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | May 7, 2025 | Aug 26, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-01-31 | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, File, Audio, Video | Text, Image |
| Outputs | Text | Image |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | Yes |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Aug 26, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-06 from Google with Muse Image from Meta? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-06 | Muse Image | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-06 vs Muse Image FAQ
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-06 or Muse Image?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
A comparable blended token price is not available for both models. Check the API pricing rows for the values that are currently published.
Which model supports more context?
Comparable context-window data is not available for both models.
Can I switch between Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-06 and Muse Image?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.