Model comparison
Llama 3.2 1B vs Muse Spark 1.3
Muse Spark 1.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 28× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Muse Spark 1.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Muse Spark 1.3 in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Muse Spark 1.3 leads 73.1 to 10.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0.6% for Llama 3.2 1B and 99.2% for Muse Spark 1.3.
- Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $4.25 for Muse Spark 1.3.
- Muse Spark 1.3 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 60K.
- Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Spark 1.3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 20.1 | 54.8 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2026-09-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 60K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 54K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.027 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $4.25 |
| Results tracked | 22 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Muse Spark 1.3: 56.6 (#21)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1070 | 1514 |
| CursorBench | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1657 |
| SciCode | — | 59.7% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Muse Spark 1.3: 38.6 (#30)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 57.8% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 10.8% | — |
| BALROG | 6.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 27.6% |
Reasoning Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Muse Spark 1.3: 54.0 (#27)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 38% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | 1503 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.99 | 156.75 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.1% |
| CritPt | — | 26% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 25% |
| DTBench | — | 96.5% |
| LMCA | — | 53.9% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.14 |
Math Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Muse Spark 1.3: 73.1 (#21)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | 99.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1086 | 1494 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 58% |
Knowledge Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Muse Spark 1.3: 42.6 (#95)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | 1516 |
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: —, Muse Spark 1.3: 43.7 (#22)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1309 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1471 |
Multilingual Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Muse Spark 1.3: 57.4 (#8)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1481 |
| LMArena Chinese | 959 | 1529 |
| LMArena German | 1014 | 1515 |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | 1490 |
| LMArena French | — | 1524 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1474 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1501 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1490 |
Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Muse Spark 1.3: 77.5 (#22)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | 1477 |
Long Context Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Muse Spark 1.3: 45.6 (#32)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | 1488 |
Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Muse Spark 1.3: 73.6 (#9)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | 1490 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1455 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | 1906 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | 1482 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 28× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Muse Spark 1.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Muse Spark 1.3?
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Muse Spark 1.3 lists at $1.25 and $4.25.
Is Llama 3.2 1B or Muse Spark 1.3 better for coding?
Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 56.6 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.3 does, with 1.05M tokens against 60K.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Muse Spark 1.3 share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.3 has 37.