Model comparison

Muse Spark 1.1 vs Ring-2.6-1T

Muse Spark 1.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#51); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Muse Spark 1.1 Meta

49.9

Rank #51 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher in 2 categories and Ring-2.6-1T in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.1 leads 47.1 to 26.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 58.8% for Muse Spark 1.1 and 42.4% for Ring-2.6-1T.
  • Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Muse Spark 1.1 and Ring-2.6-1T specifications
Muse Spark 1.1Ring-2.6-1T
ProviderMetaAnt Group (inclusionAI)
Noometry Index49.936.9
Released2026-04-082026-05-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$4.25—
Results tracked373

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), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Ring-2.6-1T
SciCode58.8%42.4%
DeepSWE53.3%—
LMArena WebDev1542—
LMArena Coding1498—
ALE-Bench—432.57

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.1: 30.8 (#73), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Ring-2.6-1T
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), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Ring-2.6-1T
CritPt15.1%3.7%
NYT Connections (extended)84.9%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1486—
DTBench94.4%—
LMCA49.9%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index154.21—

Math Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.1: 45.5 (#76), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Ring-2.6-1T
ProofBench39%—
LMArena Math1483—

Knowledge Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.1: 53.1 (#59), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Ring-2.6-1T
SimpleQA Verified57.8%—
LMArena Expert1478—

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.1: 42.6 (#29), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Ring-2.6-1T
LMArena Vision1293—
LMArena Document1465—

Multilingual Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.1: 56.7 (#17), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Ring-2.6-1T
LMArena Non-English1472—
LMArena Chinese1518—
LMArena French1494—
LMArena German1466—
LMArena Japanese1451—
LMArena Korean1458—
LMArena Russian1483—
LMArena Spanish1464—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.1: 76.5 (#39), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Ring-2.6-1T
LMArena Instruction Following1457—

Long Context Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.1: 44.8 (#58), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Ring-2.6-1T
LMArena Longer Query1462—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.1: 73.4 (#11), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.1Ring-2.6-1T
LMArena Text1479—
LMArena Creative Writing1437—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1927—
EQ-Bench 41260—
LMArena Multi-Turn1485—

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Spark 1.1 better than Ring-2.6-1T?

Muse Spark 1.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#51); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is Muse Spark 1.1 or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?

Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Spark 1.1 and Ring-2.6-1T share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark 1.1 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper