Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp vs Muse Spark 1.2

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 44.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp costs 6.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Muse Spark 1.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp DeepSeek

44.3

Rank #78 Confirmed

Muse Spark 1.2 Meta

50.3

Rank #48 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp scores higher in 2 categories and Muse Spark 1.2 in 7 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 51.3 to 22.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 36.7% for DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and 79.2% for Muse Spark 1.2.
  • DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp is cheaper at $0.26 / $0.38 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $4.25 for Muse Spark 1.2.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 164K.
  • DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and Muse Spark 1.2 specifications
DeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Spark 1.2
ProviderDeepSeekMeta
Noometry Index44.350.3
Released2025-09-292026-08-05
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window164K1.05M
Max output66K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.26$1.25
Output $ / M tokens$0.38$4.25
Results tracked4931

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

Category by category

Coding Muse Spark 1.2 leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 46.5 (#65), Muse Spark 1.2: 49.2 (#51)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena WebDev13621533
SciCode38.9%56.4%
WeirdML39.5%60.3%
LMArena Coding14541495
DeepSWE—54.9%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)70%—
Aider Polyglot74.2%—
SWE-bench Multilingual59%—
FrontierSWE—12%

Agentic & Tool Use DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 32.7 (#59), Muse Spark 1.2: 29.4 (#87)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Spark 1.2
APEX-Agents21.3%36.4%
Terminal-Bench39.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard56.7%—
TheAgentCompany42.9%—
GDP.pdf—16%
Vending-Bench 21,034—

Reasoning Muse Spark 1.2 leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 22.1 (#208), Muse Spark 1.2: 51.3 (#34)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Spark 1.2
NYT Connections (extended)36.7%79.2%
CritPt2.9%17.7%
LMArena Hard Prompts14341486
DTBench87.7%94.7%
LMCA29.1%48.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index146.27154.87
ARC-AGI-24%—
SimpleBench—74.5%
Kagi LLM Benchmark52.2%—
ARC-AGI-157%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
Thematic Generalization65%—

Math Muse Spark 1.2 leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 41.7 (#87), Muse Spark 1.2: 46.4 (#70)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Spark 1.2
ProofBench8%43%
LMArena Math14351471
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions57.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202587.8%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)22.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge Muse Spark 1.2 leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 51.7 (#66), Muse Spark 1.2: 54.1 (#53)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Expert14361480
GPQA Diamond83.4%—
SimpleQA Verified—60.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: —, Muse Spark 1.2: 43.4 (#25)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Vision—1305

Multilingual Muse Spark 1.2 leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 52.2 (#90), Muse Spark 1.2: 57.1 (#11)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Non-English14091478
LMArena Chinese14611511
LMArena French14331513
LMArena Russian14241487
LMArena Spanish14401498
LMArena German1440—
LMArena Japanese1374—
LMArena Korean1371—

Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.2 leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 74.5 (#93), Muse Spark 1.2: 76.7 (#36)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Instruction Following14131461

Long Context DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 47.6 (#16), Muse Spark 1.2: 45.2 (#48)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Longer Query14281475
Fiction.LiveBench83.3%—
CL-bench13.2%—
CL-bench Life9.5%—

Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.2 leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 62.4 (#77), Muse Spark 1.2: 72.3 (#14)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Text14251482
LMArena Creative Writing14031449
EQ-Bench Creative Writing15151840
LMArena Multi-Turn14271494

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp better than Muse Spark 1.2?

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 44.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp costs 6.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Muse Spark 1.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp or Muse Spark 1.2?

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp is cheaper. It lists at $0.26 per million input tokens and $0.38 per million output tokens; Muse Spark 1.2 lists at $1.25 and $4.25.

Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp or Muse Spark 1.2 better for coding?

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.2 versus 46.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Muse Spark 1.2 does, with 1.05M tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and Muse Spark 1.2 share?

25 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp has 49 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.2 has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper