Muse Spark 1.3vsQwen3.8-27B
Muse Spark 1.3 | Qwen3.8-27B | |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | — | 27B |
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. | 1M | 262k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
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. | — | $0.32Chutes |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $2.50Chutes |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 75.4% | 42.2% |
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. | 88.8% | 73% |
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. | 64.9% | 33.4% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 78% |
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. | — | 61.7% |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 42.3% |
SWEAtlas CodeBase QnACodebase understanding — Questions about how an unfamiliar codebase actually works — where something is handled, what a change would touch — answered by reading the repository rather than editing it. Tests understanding rather than patch-writing. Higher is better. | 59.4% | — |
QwenSWEBenchSoftware engineering — Qwen's in-house coding benchmark for evaluating a model's ability to complete software-engineering work. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 90.3% |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 70.7% |
DeepSearchQAAgentic browsing — Questions that cannot be answered from one page: the AI has to search the web, follow the trail across several sources, and put the pieces together into an answer. Higher is better. | 89.4% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity'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. | — | 30.8% |
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. | — | 30.8% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 89.2% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 79.5% |
Agentic IF Index (Internal)Instruction following — Meta's internal measure of whether a model keeps following the instructions it was given while working as an agent — over a long run of tool calls, not just in a single reply. Higher is better. | 57.8% | — |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 66.9% | — |
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. | — | 84.3% |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 20.4% |
Agent's Last Exam · scoreAgentic computer use — The graded score on the same desktop and operating-system tasks in Agent's Last Exam, giving partial credit for progress beyond the strict pass-or-fail result. Higher is better. | — | 42.9% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 49.4% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1754 | — |
MRCR · 256k-512kLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document, here across inputs of roughly 256k to 512k tokens — several books' worth of text. Higher is better. | 98.5% | — |
MRCR · 512k-1MLong context — The same buried-detail retrieval test run on even longer inputs, from roughly 512k up to a million tokens. Scores usually slip as the document grows, so read it against the shorter span above. Higher is better. | 98.1% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Qwen |
| Release date | Sep 2 2026 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Muse Spark 1.3vsClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8-27BvsClaude Fable 5.1Muse Spark 1.3vsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-27BvsGPT-5.6 SolMuse Spark 1.3vsGemini 3.8 FlashQwen3.8-27BvsGemini 3.8 FlashMuse Spark 1.3vsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-27BvsGrok 4.6Muse Spark 1.3vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-27BvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse Spark 1.3vsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-27BvsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark 1.3 leads Qwen3.8-27B on 3 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, Terminal-Bench 2.1, JobBench). Qwen3.8-27B shipped 19 days before Muse Spark 1.3, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Spark 1.3) vs 262k (Qwen3.8-27B). Muse Spark 1.3 is proprietary, while Qwen3.8-27B is open weight.
On DeepSWE 1.1, Muse Spark 1.3 leads at 75.4% vs Qwen3.8-27B at 42.2%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Muse Spark 1.3 leads at 88.8% vs Qwen3.8-27B at 73%. On JobBench, Muse Spark 1.3 leads at 64.9% vs Qwen3.8-27B at 33.4%.
Muse Spark 1.3 was released by Meta on Sep 2 2026.
Qwen3.8-27B was released by Qwen on Aug 14 2026.
Muse Spark 1.3 leads on DeepSWE 1.1 — Muse Spark 1.3 75.4% vs Qwen3.8-27B 42.2%.
Muse Spark 1.3 has a 1M context window; Qwen3.8-27B has 262k.
Muse Spark 1.3 is a proprietary model released by Meta. Qwen3.8-27B is an open weight model released by Qwen.