Muse SparkvsNemotron Nano 2
Muse Spark | Nemotron Nano 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | — | 9B |
| Benchmarks | ||
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 89.5% | 64% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | 2.9% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 14.3% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 16.5% | — |
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. | 55% | — |
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. | 77.4% | — |
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. | 10% | — |
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. | — | 71.1% |
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. | 67.3% | — |
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. | 82.2% | — |
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. | 17% | — |
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. | 49.4% | — |
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. | 50.4% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 42.5% | — |
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. | 53.3% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 88.9% | — |
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. | 39.9% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 80.4% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Apr 8 2026 | Aug 18 2025 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Muse SparkvsClaude Opus 5Nemotron Nano 2vsClaude Opus 5Muse SparkvsGPT-5.6 SolNemotron Nano 2vsGPT-5.6 SolMuse SparkvsGemini 3.7 FlashNemotron Nano 2vsGemini 3.7 FlashMuse SparkvsGrok 4.6Nemotron Nano 2vsGrok 4.6Muse SparkvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Nemotron Nano 2vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse SparkvsMistral Medium 3.5Nemotron Nano 2vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark leads Nemotron Nano 2 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (GPQA Diamond). Nemotron Nano 2 shipped 233 days before Muse Spark, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Spark is proprietary, while Nemotron Nano 2 is open weight.
On GPQA Diamond, Muse Spark leads at 89.5% vs Nemotron Nano 2 at 64%.
Muse Spark was released by Meta on Apr 8 2026.
Nemotron Nano 2 was released by NVIDIA on Aug 18 2025.
Muse Spark leads on GPQA Diamond — Muse Spark 89.5% vs Nemotron Nano 2 64%.
Muse Spark is a proprietary model released by Meta. Nemotron Nano 2 is an open weight model released by NVIDIA.