Model comparison

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen1.5-14B

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Muse Spark 1.2 Meta

50.3

Rank #48 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.7

Rank #253 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B 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 33.6.
  • Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Muse Spark 1.2 and Qwen1.5-14B specifications
Muse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-14B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.332.7
Released2026-08-052024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$4.25—
Results tracked3117

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), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Coding14951138
DeepSWE54.9%—
LMArena WebDev1533—
FrontierSWE12%—
SciCode56.4%—
WeirdML60.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 29.4 (#87), Qwen1.5-14B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-14B
APEX-Agents36.4%—
GDP.pdf16%—

Reasoning Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 51.3 (#34), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts14861113
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), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Math14711125
ProofBench43%—

Knowledge Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 54.1 (#53), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Expert14801094
SimpleQA Verified60.3%—
MMLU—68.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 43.4 (#25), Qwen1.5-14B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Vision1305—

Multilingual Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 57.1 (#11), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Non-English14781095
LMArena Chinese15111147
LMArena French15131116
LMArena Russian14871046
LMArena Spanish14981085
LMArena German—1043
LMArena Japanese—1019

Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 76.7 (#36), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Instruction Following14611102

Long Context Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 45.2 (#48), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Longer Query14751113

Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 72.3 (#14), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Text14821128
LMArena Creative Writing14491091
LMArena Multi-Turn14941110
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Spark 1.2 better than Qwen1.5-14B?

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Muse Spark 1.2 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.2 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Spark 1.2 and Qwen1.5-14B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark 1.2 has 31 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper