Model comparison
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Muse Spark 1.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.9 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Muse Spark 1.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Muse Spark 1.1 leads 51.3 to 34.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 57.8% for Muse Spark 1.1 and 20.3% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $4.25 for Muse Spark 1.1.
- Muse Spark 1.1 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 49.9 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-08 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.25 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 37 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1542 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1498 | 1412 |
| DeepSWE | 53.3% | — |
| SciCode | 58.8% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.1: 30.8 (#73), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 6,520 | 462.69 |
| APEX-Agents | 31.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 40.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 7.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 15% | — |
Reasoning Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Muse Spark 1.1: 47.1 (#44), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1486 | 1403 |
| DTBench | 94.4% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 49.9% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.21 | 143.98 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 84.9% | — |
| CritPt | 15.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 52.5% | — |
Math Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Muse Spark 1.1: 45.5 (#76), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1483 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| ProofBench | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Muse Spark 1.1: 53.1 (#59), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | 57.8% | 20.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1478 | 1407 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.1: 42.6 (#29), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1293 | — |
| LMArena Document | 1465 | — |
Multilingual Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Muse Spark 1.1: 56.7 (#17), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1472 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1518 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1494 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1466 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1451 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1458 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1483 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1464 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Muse Spark 1.1: 76.5 (#39), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1457 | 1374 |
Long Context Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Muse Spark 1.1: 44.8 (#58), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1462 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Muse Spark 1.1: 73.4 (#11), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1479 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1437 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1485 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1927 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1260 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Spark 1.1 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Muse Spark 1.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.9 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Muse Spark 1.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Muse Spark 1.1 or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Muse Spark 1.1 lists at $1.25 and $4.25.
Is Muse Spark 1.1 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.1 does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark 1.1 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.