Noometry

Model comparison

Codellama 34b Instruct vs Muse Spark 1.2

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

Codellama 34b Instruct Meta

30.8

Rank #287 Confirmed

Muse Spark 1.2 Meta

50.3

Rank #48 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Codellama 34b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and Muse Spark 1.2 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 72.3 to 28.2.
  • Codellama 34b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Codellama 34b InstructMuse Spark 1.2
ProviderMetaMeta
Noometry Index30.850.3
Released—2026-08-05
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1.05M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$1.25
Output $ / M tokens—$4.25
Results tracked1431

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 28.5 (#314), Muse Spark 1.2: 49.2 (#51)

BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Coding10461495
DeepSWE—54.9%
LMArena WebDev—1533
FrontierSWE—12%
SciCode—56.4%
WeirdML—60.3%
BigCodeBench Instruct29%—
BigCodeBench Complete37.1%—
HumanEval+43.9%—
MBPP+56.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Codellama 34b Instruct: —, Muse Spark 1.2: 29.4 (#87)

BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructMuse Spark 1.2
APEX-Agents—36.4%
GDP.pdf—16%

Reasoning Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 19.6 (#255), Muse Spark 1.2: 51.3 (#34)

BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Hard Prompts10321486
SimpleBench—74.5%
NYT Connections (extended)—79.2%
CritPt—17.7%
DTBench—94.7%
LMCA—48.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—154.87

Math Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 31.0 (#230), Muse Spark 1.2: 46.4 (#70)

BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Math10561471
ProofBench—43%

Knowledge Not comparable

Codellama 34b Instruct: —, Muse Spark 1.2: 54.1 (#53)

BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructMuse Spark 1.2
SimpleQA Verified—60.3%
LMArena Expert—1480

Multimodal Not comparable

Codellama 34b Instruct: —, Muse Spark 1.2: 43.4 (#25)

BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Vision—1305

Multilingual Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 25.8 (#284), Muse Spark 1.2: 57.1 (#11)

BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Non-English10111478
LMArena Chinese9761511
LMArena French—1513
LMArena Russian—1487
LMArena Spanish—1498

Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 52.2 (#291), Muse Spark 1.2: 76.7 (#36)

BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Instruction Following10281461

Long Context Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 30.9 (#284), Muse Spark 1.2: 45.2 (#48)

BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Longer Query10131475

Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 28.2 (#297), Muse Spark 1.2: 72.3 (#14)

BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Text10661482
LMArena Creative Writing10321449
LMArena Multi-Turn10151494
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1840

Frequently asked questions

Is Codellama 34b Instruct better than Muse Spark 1.2?

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Codellama 34b Instruct or Muse Spark 1.2 better for coding?

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.2 versus 28.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Codellama 34b Instruct and Muse Spark 1.2 share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Codellama 34b Instruct has 14 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.2 has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper