Noometry

Model comparison

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Muse Spark 1.2 has enough public results to be ranked (#44); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Muse Spark 1.2 Meta

49.8

Rank #44 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

38.2

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 48.6 to 37.1.
  • Qwen2.5 14B Instruct is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $4.25 for Muse Spark 1.2.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Muse Spark 1.2Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index49.838.2
Released2026-08-052024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$4.25$1.40
Results tracked283

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), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.1 (#187)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
DeepSWE54.9%—
LMArena WebDev1532—
FrontierSWE12%—
SciCode56.4%—
WeirdML60.3%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—39.8%
LMArena Coding1497—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.2%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 29.5 (#77), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
APEX-Agents36.4%—
GDP.pdf16%—

Reasoning Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 50.4 (#32), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
SimpleBench74.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)79.2%—
CritPt17.7%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1490—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA48.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.18—

Math Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 43.8 (#68), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
ProofBench43%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 53.9 (#49), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
SimpleQA Verified60.3%—
LMArena Expert1485—
MMLU—79.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 42.6 (#24), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Vision1304—

Multilingual Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 57.4 (#10), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1479—
LMArena Chinese1519—
LMArena Russian1494—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 77.1 (#30), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1466—

Long Context Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 45.4 (#35), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1483—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 72.6 (#14), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Text1486—
LMArena Creative Writing1444—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—
LMArena Multi-Turn1504—

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Spark 1.2 better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Muse Spark 1.2 has enough public results to be ranked (#44); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Muse Spark 1.2 or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Muse Spark 1.2 lists at $1.25 and $4.25.

Is Muse Spark 1.2 or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.6 versus 37.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Muse Spark 1.2 does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Muse Spark 1.2 and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark 1.2 has 28 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper