Muse Spark 1.1vsQwen3-Coder-Next
Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3-Coder-Next | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 80B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 256k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $1.25 | $0.30 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $4.25 | $1.50 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.12Parasail |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.80Parasail |
| Benchmarks | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 61.5% | 44.3% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 70.6% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 62.8% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 53.3% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 80% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 36.2% |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 88.1% | — |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | 54.7% | — |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | 75.6% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 62.1% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 80.8% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 57.2% | — |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 20% | — |
TaxEval v2Tax questions — A set of real tax questions created by Vals AI — can the AI give accurate answers about tax rules and filings? Higher is better. | 79.72% | — |
MedScribeMedical admin work — Can the AI support doctors with their administrative work, like notes and paperwork? Created by Vals AI. Higher is better. | 88.89% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 88.4% | — |
BabyVisionVisual reasoning — Tests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | 76.3% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Qwen |
| Release date | Jul 9 2026 | Feb 3 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Muse Spark 1.1vsClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3-Coder-NextvsClaude Fable 5.1Muse Spark 1.1vsGPT-6 AstraQwen3-Coder-NextvsGPT-6 AstraMuse Spark 1.1vsGemini 3.8 FlashQwen3-Coder-NextvsGemini 3.8 FlashMuse Spark 1.1vsGrok 4.6Qwen3-Coder-NextvsGrok 4.6Muse Spark 1.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3-Coder-NextvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse Spark 1.1vsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3-Coder-NextvsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark 1.1 leads Qwen3-Coder-Next on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (SWE-Bench Pro). Qwen3-Coder-Next is cheaper on both input and output: $0.30 vs $1.25 per million input tokens, and $1.50 vs $4.25 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Qwen3-Coder-Next shipped 156 days before Muse Spark 1.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Spark 1.1 is proprietary, while Qwen3-Coder-Next is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Muse Spark 1.1 leads at 61.5% vs Qwen3-Coder-Next at 44.3%.