Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Muse Spark 1.1
Muse Spark 1.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.9 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Muse Spark 1.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B 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 math, where Muse Spark 1.1 leads 45.5 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 48% for Gemma 2 27B and 94.4% for Muse Spark 1.1.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 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 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Muse Spark 1.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 49.9 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2026-04-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 8K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 2K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $4.25 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Muse Spark 1.1: 51.3 (#40)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1498 |
| DeepSWE | — | 53.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1542 |
| SciCode | — | 58.8% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Muse Spark 1.1: 30.8 (#73)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | 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
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Muse Spark 1.1: 47.1 (#44)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1486 |
| DTBench | 48% | 94.4% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | 154.21 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 84.9% |
| CritPt | — | 15.1% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 52.5% |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Muse Spark 1.1: 45.5 (#76)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1483 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 39% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Muse Spark 1.1: 53.1 (#59)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1478 |
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 57.8% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Muse Spark 1.1: 42.6 (#29)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1293 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1465 |
Multilingual Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Muse Spark 1.1: 56.7 (#17)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1518 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | 1494 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1466 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1458 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1483 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1464 |
Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Muse Spark 1.1: 76.5 (#39)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1457 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Muse Spark 1.1: 44.8 (#58)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1462 |
Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Muse Spark 1.1: 73.4 (#11)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1479 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1437 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1485 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1927 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1260 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.9 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 3.1× 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, Gemma 2 27B or Muse Spark 1.1?
Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Muse Spark 1.1 lists at $1.25 and $4.25.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Muse Spark 1.1 better for coding?
Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.1 does, with 1.05M tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Muse Spark 1.1 share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.1 has 37.