Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Muse Spark

Muse Spark is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.6 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B Meta

28.9

Rank #321 Confirmed

Muse Spark Meta

50.6

Rank #46 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 0 categories and Muse Spark in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Muse Spark leads 66.0 to 24.7.
  • Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3B and Muse Spark specifications
Llama 3.2 3BMuse Spark
ProviderMetaMeta
Noometry Index28.950.6
Released2024-09-242026-04-08
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window131K—
Max output118K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.05—
Output $ / M tokens$0.33—
Results tracked1827

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

Category by category

Coding Muse Spark leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319), Muse Spark: 46.2 (#69)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BMuse Spark
LMArena Coding10981481
SciCode—51.5%
BigCodeBench Instruct23.4%—
BigCodeBench Complete28.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143), Muse Spark: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BMuse Spark
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard21.9%—
BALROG10.1%—

Reasoning Muse Spark leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228), Muse Spark: 35.9 (#67)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BMuse Spark
LMArena Hard Prompts10951474
CritPt—11.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—152.04

Math Muse Spark leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214), Muse Spark: 47.8 (#66)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BMuse Spark
LMArena Math11261455
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—88.9%
ProofBench—17%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—39%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—14.6%

Knowledge Muse Spark leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235), Muse Spark: 65.7 (#13)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BMuse Spark
LMArena Expert10901457
GPQA Diamond—89.8%
Humanity's Last Exam—40.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: —, Muse Spark: 43.4 (#24)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BMuse Spark
LMArena Vision—1306
LMArena Document—1444

Multilingual Muse Spark leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281), Muse Spark: 56.1 (#24)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BMuse Spark
LMArena Non-English10191464
LMArena Chinese10171509
LMArena German10561497
LMArena Russian9491466
LMArena French—1497
LMArena Korean—1459
LMArena Spanish—1472

Instruction Following Muse Spark leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275), Muse Spark: 75.9 (#51)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BMuse Spark
LMArena Instruction Following10891442

Long Context Muse Spark leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261), Muse Spark: 44.4 (#69)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BMuse Spark
LMArena Longer Query11001451

Writing & Preference Muse Spark leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307), Muse Spark: 66.0 (#39)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BMuse Spark
LMArena Text11101474
LMArena Creative Writing10941459
LMArena Multi-Turn11051477
EQ-Bench Creative Writing595—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Muse Spark?

Muse Spark is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.6 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or Muse Spark better for coding?

Muse Spark scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.2 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Muse Spark share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper