Noometry

Model comparison

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Muse Spark 1.2 Meta

50.3

Rank #48 Confirmed

Olmo 3.1 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

37.9

Rank #191 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 51.3 to 25.2.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Muse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderMetaAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index50.337.9
Released2026-08-05—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$4.25—
Results tracked3115

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

Category by category

Coding Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 49.2 (#51), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding14951291
DeepSWE54.9%—
LMArena WebDev1533—
FrontierSWE12%—
SciCode56.4%—
WeirdML60.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 29.4 (#87), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Think
APEX-Agents36.4%—
GDP.pdf16%—

Reasoning Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 51.3 (#34), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14861272
SimpleBench74.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)79.2%—
CritPt17.7%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA48.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index154.87—

Math Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 46.4 (#70), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Math14711305
ProofBench43%—

Knowledge Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 54.1 (#53), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert14801295
SimpleQA Verified60.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 43.4 (#25), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Vision1305—

Multilingual Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 57.1 (#11), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English14781209
LMArena Chinese15111242
LMArena French15131260
LMArena Russian14871193
LMArena Spanish14981289
LMArena German—1262

Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 76.7 (#36), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following14611247

Long Context Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 45.2 (#48), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query14751272

Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 72.3 (#14), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text14821272
LMArena Creative Writing14491226
LMArena Multi-Turn14941252
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Spark 1.2 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Muse Spark 1.2 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.2 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Spark 1.2 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark 1.2 has 31 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper