Model comparison
Command R vs Muse Spark 1.1
Muse Spark 1.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.9 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 7.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Muse Spark 1.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
MetaSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Muse Spark 1.1 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Muse Spark 1.1 leads 73.4 to 38.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 46.4% for Command R and 94.4% for Muse Spark 1.1.
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $4.25 for Muse Spark 1.1.
- Muse Spark 1.1 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 128K.
- Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command R | Muse Spark 1.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 49.9 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-04-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 4K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $4.25 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Command R: 29.3 (#306), Muse Spark 1.1: 51.3 (#40)
| Benchmark | Command R | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | 1498 |
| DeepSWE | — | 53.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1542 |
| SciCode | — | 58.8% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R: —, Muse Spark 1.1: 30.8 (#73)
| Benchmark | Command R | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 31.8% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 40.5% |
| GBAEval | — | 7.9% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 15% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 6,520 |
Reasoning Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Command R: 13.8 (#331), Muse Spark 1.1: 47.1 (#44)
| Benchmark | Command R | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1486 |
| DTBench | 46.4% | 94.4% |
| LMCA | 9.2% | 49.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 84.9% |
| CritPt | — | 15.1% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 52.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 154.21 |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Command R: 28.0 (#246), Muse Spark 1.1: 45.5 (#76)
| Benchmark | Command R | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1483 |
| ProofBench | — | 39% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
Knowledge Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Command R: 31.0 (#221), Muse Spark 1.1: 53.1 (#59)
| Benchmark | Command R | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1478 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 57.8% |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command R: —, Muse Spark 1.1: 42.6 (#29)
| Benchmark | Command R | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1293 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1465 |
Multilingual Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Command R: 35.7 (#245), Muse Spark 1.1: 56.7 (#17)
| Benchmark | Command R | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1518 |
| LMArena French | 1162 | 1494 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1466 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | 1458 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1483 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | 1464 |
Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Command R: 58.1 (#261), Muse Spark 1.1: 76.5 (#39)
| Benchmark | Command R | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1457 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
Long Context Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Command R: 36.3 (#231), Muse Spark 1.1: 44.8 (#58)
| Benchmark | Command R | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1462 |
Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Command R: 38.2 (#254), Muse Spark 1.1: 73.4 (#11)
| Benchmark | Command R | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1479 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1437 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1485 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1927 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1260 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.9 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 7.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Muse Spark 1.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command R or Muse Spark 1.1?
Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Muse Spark 1.1 lists at $1.25 and $4.25.
Is Command R or Muse Spark 1.1 better for coding?
Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.1 does, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Muse Spark 1.1 share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.1 has 37.