Noometry

Model comparison

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen1.5-110B

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Muse Spark 1.2 Meta

50.3

Rank #48 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-110B Alibaba (Qwen)

34.2

Rank #234 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Spark 1.2 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 1.2 leads 72.3 to 38.0.
  • Qwen1.5-110B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Muse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-110B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.334.2
Released2026-08-052024-04-25
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$4.25—
Results tracked3120

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), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.0 (#264)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Coding14951184
DeepSWE54.9%—
LMArena WebDev1533—
FrontierSWE12%—
SciCode56.4%—
WeirdML60.3%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—35%
BigCodeBench Complete—44.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 29.4 (#87), Qwen1.5-110B: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-110B
APEX-Agents36.4%—
GDP.pdf16%—

Reasoning Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 51.3 (#34), Qwen1.5-110B: 22.7 (#189)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Hard Prompts14861168
SimpleBench74.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)79.2%—
CritPt17.7%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA48.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index154.87—
ForecastBench—57.7

Math Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 46.4 (#70), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.7 (#201)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Math14711185
ProofBench43%—

Knowledge Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 54.1 (#53), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.2 (#219)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Expert14801144
SimpleQA Verified60.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 43.4 (#25), Qwen1.5-110B: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Vision1305—

Multilingual Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 57.1 (#11), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.6 (#250)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Non-English14781142
LMArena Chinese15111206
LMArena French15131151
LMArena Russian14871118
LMArena Spanish14981142
LMArena German—1123
LMArena Japanese—1074
LMArena Korean—1044

Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 76.7 (#36), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.3 (#252)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Instruction Following14611158

Long Context Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 45.2 (#48), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.1 (#242)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Longer Query14751157

Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 72.3 (#14), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.0 (#255)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Text14821175
LMArena Creative Writing14491148
LMArena Multi-Turn14941160
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Spark 1.2 better than Qwen1.5-110B?

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Muse Spark 1.2 or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.2 versus 33.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Spark 1.2 and Qwen1.5-110B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark 1.2 has 31 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.

Related comparisons

Go deeper