Noometry

Model comparison

Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen1.5-32B

Muse Spark 1.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.9 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Muse Spark 1.1 Meta

49.9

Rank #51 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Muse Spark 1.1 leads 53.1 to 13.5.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Muse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-32B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index49.930.5
Released2026-04-082024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$4.25—
Results tracked3721

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), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding14981155
DeepSWE53.3%—
LMArena WebDev1542—
SciCode58.8%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.1: 30.8 (#73), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-32B
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), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14861130
NYT Connections (extended)84.9%—
CritPt15.1%—
DTBench94.4%—
LMCA49.9%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index154.21—

Math Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 45.5 (#76), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math14831155
ProofBench39%—

Knowledge Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 53.1 (#59), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Expert14781126
GPQA Diamond—30.7%
SimpleQA Verified57.8%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.1: 42.6 (#29), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1293—
LMArena Document1465—

Multilingual Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 56.7 (#17), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English14721106
LMArena Chinese15181177
LMArena French14941101
LMArena German14661058
LMArena Japanese14511027
LMArena Korean14581008
LMArena Russian14831073
LMArena Spanish14641089

Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 76.5 (#39), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14571116

Long Context Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 44.8 (#58), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query14621146

Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Muse Spark 1.1: 73.4 (#11), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text14791137
LMArena Creative Writing14371083
LMArena Multi-Turn14851140
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1927—
EQ-Bench 41260—

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Spark 1.1 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Muse Spark 1.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.9 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Muse Spark 1.1 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark 1.1 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper