Noometry

Model comparison

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen1.5-32B

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.8 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Muse Spark 1.2 Meta

49.8

Rank #44 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #288 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 53.9 to 13.5.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Muse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-32B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index49.830.0
Released2026-08-052024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$4.25—
Results tracked2821

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: 48.6 (#49), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding14971155
DeepSWE54.9%—
LMArena WebDev1532—
FrontierSWE12%—
SciCode56.4%—
WeirdML60.3%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 29.5 (#77), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-32B
APEX-Agents36.4%—
GDP.pdf16%—

Reasoning Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 50.4 (#32), Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14901131
SimpleBench74.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)79.2%—
CritPt17.7%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA48.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.18—

Math Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 43.8 (#68), Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-32B
ProofBench43%—
LMArena Math—1155

Knowledge Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 53.9 (#49), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Expert14851126
GPQA Diamond—30.7%
SimpleQA Verified60.3%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 42.6 (#24), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1304—

Multilingual Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 57.4 (#10), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English14791106
LMArena Chinese15191176
LMArena Russian14941073
LMArena French—1100
LMArena German—1058
LMArena Japanese—1027
LMArena Korean—1007
LMArena Spanish—1089

Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 77.1 (#30), Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14661116

Long Context Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 45.4 (#35), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query14831146

Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 72.6 (#14), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text14861137
LMArena Creative Writing14441083
LMArena Multi-Turn15041140
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Spark 1.2 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.8 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Muse Spark 1.2 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.6 versus 31.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Spark 1.2 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark 1.2 has 28 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper