Model comparison

Llama 3.2 90B vs Muse Spark 1.2

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 90B Meta

27.1

Rank #326 Confirmed

Muse Spark 1.2 Meta

49.8

Rank #44 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 90B scores higher in 1 category and Muse Spark 1.2 in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 43.8 to 10.4.
  • Llama 3.2 90B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 90B and Muse Spark 1.2 specifications
Llama 3.2 90BMuse Spark 1.2
ProviderMetaMeta
Noometry Index27.149.8
Released2024-09-242026-08-05
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1.05M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$1.25
Output $ / M tokens—$4.25
Results tracked928

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Llama 3.2 90B: —, Muse Spark 1.2: 48.6 (#49)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 90BMuse Spark 1.2
DeepSWE—54.9%
LMArena WebDev—1532
FrontierSWE—12%
SciCode—56.4%
WeirdML—60.3%
LMArena Coding—1497

Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call

Llama 3.2 90B: 29.7 (#73), Muse Spark 1.2: 29.5 (#77)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 90BMuse Spark 1.2
APEX-Agents—36.4%
BALROG27.3%—
GDP.pdf—16%

Reasoning Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Llama 3.2 90B: 20.9 (#207), Muse Spark 1.2: 50.4 (#32)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 90BMuse Spark 1.2
Epoch Capabilities Index125.5155.18
SimpleBench—74.5%
NYT Connections (extended)—79.2%
CritPt—17.7%
EnigmaEval0.4%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1490
DTBench—94.7%
LMCA—48.4%

Math Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Llama 3.2 90B: 10.4 (#302), Muse Spark 1.2: 43.8 (#68)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 90BMuse Spark 1.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20252.6%—
ProofBench—43%
MATH Level 539.4%—

Knowledge Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#269), Muse Spark 1.2: 53.9 (#49)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 90BMuse Spark 1.2
GPQA Diamond41%—
SimpleQA Verified—60.3%
LMArena Expert—1485
MMLU80.3%—

Multimodal Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Llama 3.2 90B: 24.9 (#119), Muse Spark 1.2: 42.6 (#24)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 90BMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Vision10001304
GeoBench52%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 90B: —, Muse Spark 1.2: 57.4 (#10)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 90BMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Non-English—1479
LMArena Chinese—1519
LMArena Russian—1494

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.2 90B: —, Muse Spark 1.2: 77.1 (#30)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 90BMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Instruction Following—1466

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.2 90B: —, Muse Spark 1.2: 45.4 (#35)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 90BMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Longer Query—1483

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.2 90B: —, Muse Spark 1.2: 72.6 (#14)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 90BMuse Spark 1.2
LMArena Text—1486
LMArena Creative Writing—1444
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1840
LMArena Multi-Turn—1504

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 90B better than Muse Spark 1.2?

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 90B and Muse Spark 1.2 share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 90B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.2 has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper