Model comparison

Muse Spark vs Qwen1.5-72B

Muse Spark is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Muse Spark Meta

50.6

Rank #46 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.8

Rank #285 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Spark scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Muse Spark leads 65.7 to 11.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 89.8% for Muse Spark and 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B.
  • Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Muse Spark and Qwen1.5-72B specifications
Muse SparkQwen1.5-72B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.630.8
Released2026-04-082024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked2722

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Muse Spark leads

Muse Spark: 46.2 (#69), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse SparkQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Coding14811165
SciCode51.5%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—33.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—40.3%
HumanEval+—59.1%
MBPP+—61.6%

Reasoning Muse Spark leads

Muse Spark: 35.9 (#67), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse SparkQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts14741148
CritPt11.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index152.04—

Math Muse Spark leads

Muse Spark: 47.8 (#66), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse SparkQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Math14551164
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202588.9%—
ProofBench17%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)39%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)14.6%—

Knowledge Muse Spark leads

Muse Spark: 65.7 (#13), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse SparkQwen1.5-72B
GPQA Diamond89.8%28.8%
LMArena Expert14571136
Humanity's Last Exam40.6%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Spark: 43.4 (#24), Qwen1.5-72B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse SparkQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Vision1306—
LMArena Document1444—

Multilingual Muse Spark leads

Muse Spark: 56.1 (#24), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse SparkQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Non-English14641135
LMArena Chinese15091186
LMArena French14971159
LMArena German14971084
LMArena Korean14591050
LMArena Russian14661104
LMArena Spanish14721110
LMArena Japanese—1061

Instruction Following Muse Spark leads

Muse Spark: 75.9 (#51), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse SparkQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Instruction Following14421141

Long Context Muse Spark leads

Muse Spark: 44.4 (#69), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse SparkQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Longer Query14511157

Writing & Preference Muse Spark leads

Muse Spark: 66.0 (#39), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMuse SparkQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Text14741166
LMArena Creative Writing14591137
LMArena Multi-Turn14771160

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Spark better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Muse Spark is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Muse Spark or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

Muse Spark scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.2 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Spark and Qwen1.5-72B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper