Noometry

Model comparison

Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen1.5-110B

Muse Spark 1.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.9 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Muse Spark 1.1 Meta

49.9

Rank #51 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-110B Alibaba (Qwen)

34.2

Rank #234 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Muse Spark 1.1 leads 73.4 to 38.0.
  • Qwen1.5-110B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Muse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-110B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index49.934.2
Released2026-04-082024-04-25
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$4.25—
Results tracked3720

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

Category by category

Coding Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 51.3 (#40), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.0 (#264)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Coding14981184
DeepSWE53.3%—
LMArena WebDev1542—
SciCode58.8%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—35%
BigCodeBench Complete—44.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.1: 30.8 (#73), Qwen1.5-110B: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-110B
APEX-Agents31.8%—
τ²-bench Banking40.5%—
GBAEval7.9%—
GDP.pdf15%—
Vending-Bench 26,520—

Reasoning Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 47.1 (#44), Qwen1.5-110B: 22.7 (#189)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Hard Prompts14861168
NYT Connections (extended)84.9%—
CritPt15.1%—
DTBench94.4%—
LMCA49.9%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index154.21—
ForecastBench—57.7

Math Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 45.5 (#76), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.7 (#201)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Math14831185
ProofBench39%—

Knowledge Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 53.1 (#59), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.2 (#219)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Expert14781144
SimpleQA Verified57.8%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.1: 42.6 (#29), Qwen1.5-110B: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Vision1293—
LMArena Document1465—

Multilingual Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 56.7 (#17), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.6 (#250)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Non-English14721142
LMArena Chinese15181206
LMArena French14941151
LMArena German14661123
LMArena Japanese14511074
LMArena Korean14581044
LMArena Russian14831118
LMArena Spanish14641142

Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 76.5 (#39), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.3 (#252)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Instruction Following14571158

Long Context Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 44.8 (#58), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.1 (#242)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Longer Query14621157

Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 73.4 (#11), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.0 (#255)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Text14791175
LMArena Creative Writing14371148
LMArena Multi-Turn14851160
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1927—
EQ-Bench 41260—

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Spark 1.1 better than Qwen1.5-110B?

Muse Spark 1.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.9 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Muse Spark 1.1 or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?

Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 33.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen1.5-110B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark 1.1 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.

Related comparisons

Go deeper