Model comparison
Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Muse Spark 1.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Muse Spark 1.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Muse Spark 1.3 leads 73.1 to 16.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 99.2% for Muse Spark 1.3 and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $4.25 for Muse Spark 1.3.
- Muse Spark 1.3 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 54.8 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2026-09-02 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Max output | 131K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.25 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 37 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Muse Spark 1.3: 56.6 (#21), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| CursorBench | 41.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1657 | — |
| SciCode | 59.7% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1514 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3: 38.6 (#30), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 57.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 27.6% | — |
Reasoning Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Muse Spark 1.3: 54.0 (#27), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.75 | 128.52 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.1% | — |
| CritPt | 26% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1503 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| DTBench | 96.5% | — |
| LMCA | 53.9% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
Math Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Muse Spark 1.3: 73.1 (#21), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 99.2% | 7.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 74.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 46.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 58% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1494 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Muse Spark 1.3: 42.6 (#95), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3: 43.7 (#22), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1309 | — |
| LMArena Document | 1471 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3: 57.4 (#8), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1481 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1529 | — |
| LMArena French | 1524 | — |
| LMArena German | 1515 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1474 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1501 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1490 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1490 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3: 77.5 (#22), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3: 45.6 (#32), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1488 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3: 73.6 (#9), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1490 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1455 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1906 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1482 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Muse Spark 1.3 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Muse Spark 1.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Muse Spark 1.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Muse Spark 1.3 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Muse Spark 1.3 lists at $1.25 and $4.25.
Is Muse Spark 1.3 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 56.6 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.3 does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Muse Spark 1.3 and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark 1.3 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.