Muse Spark 1.1vsQwen3.5
Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 397B |
Context window | — | 1M |
| Benchmarks | ||
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan 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% | — |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal 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. | — | 76.4% |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial 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% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 80% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can 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. | — | 52.5% |
Multi-step tool use MCP AtlasCan 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% | — |
Professional tool use JobBenchTests 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% | — |
Personal tool use Toolathlon-VerifiedTests 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% | — |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 69% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 28.7% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity'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% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 88.4% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 80.8%Best | 62.2% |
Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v2Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 57.2% | — |
Agentic legal work Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkHarvey'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% | — |
Tax questions TaxEval v2A 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% | — |
Medical admin work MedScribeCan the AI support doctors with their administrative work, like notes and paperwork? Created by Vals AI. Higher is better. | 88.89% | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 88.4%Best | 80.8% |
Visual reasoning BabyVisionTests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | 76.3% | — |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 85% |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | 1490 | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1540 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Qwen |
| Release date | Jul 9 2026 | Feb 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Muse Spark 1.1 or Qwen3.5?
Muse Spark 1.1 leads Qwen3.5 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (OSWorld-Verified, CharXiv Reasoning). Qwen3.5 shipped 143 days before Muse Spark 1.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Spark 1.1 is proprietary, while Qwen3.5 is open weight.
On OSWorld-Verified, Muse Spark 1.1 leads at 80.8% vs Qwen3.5 at 62.2%. On CharXiv Reasoning, Muse Spark 1.1 leads at 88.4% vs Qwen3.5 at 80.8%.
Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark 1.1 was released by Meta on Jul 9 2026.
Qwen3.5 was released by Qwen on Feb 16 2026.
Muse Spark 1.1 is a proprietary model released by Meta. Qwen3.5 is an open weight model released by Qwen.
Other comparisons
Muse Spark 1.1vsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.5vsClaude Opus 5Muse Spark 1.1vsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.5vsGPT-5.6 SolMuse Spark 1.1vsGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.5vsGemini 3.6 FlashMuse Spark 1.1vsGrok 4.5Qwen3.5vsGrok 4.5Muse Spark 1.1vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Qwen3.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Muse Spark 1.1vsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.5vsMistral Medium 3.5