Muse SparkvsQwen3.8-27B
Muse Spark | Qwen3.8-27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 27B |
Context window | — | 262k |
| Benchmarks | ||
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Attackers 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% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Attackers 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% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Attackers 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% | — |
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. | 55% | 61.7%Best |
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. | 77.4% | — |
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. | 10% | 42.2%Best |
Repo-level code generation NL2Repo-BenchTests 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% |
Software engineering QwenSWEBenchQwen's in-house coding benchmark for evaluating a model's ability to complete software-engineering work. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
Competitive coding LiveCodeBenchCoding 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% |
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. | 67.3% | 73%Best |
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. | 82.2% | — |
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. | 17% | 33.4%Best |
Long-horizon office work CoWorkBenchTests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 70.7% |
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. | 49.4% | — |
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. | — | 30.8% |
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. | 50.4% | — |
Abstract reasoning ARC-AGI-2Puzzle-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% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 89.5%Best | 89.2% |
Instruction following IFBenchTests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 79.5% |
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. | 53.3% | — |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · pass@1A 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% |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · scoreThe 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% |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 88.9% | — |
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. | 39.9% | — |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 80.4% | — |
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. | 1488 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Qwen |
| Release date | Apr 8 2026 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Muse Spark or Qwen3.8-27B?
Qwen3.8-27B leads Muse Spark on 4 of the 5 benchmarks they both report. Muse Spark shipped 128 days before Qwen3.8-27B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Spark is proprietary, while Qwen3.8-27B is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Qwen3.8-27B leads at 61.7% vs Muse Spark at 55%. On DeepSWE 1.1, Qwen3.8-27B leads at 42.2% vs Muse Spark at 10%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Qwen3.8-27B leads at 73% vs Muse Spark at 67.3%. On JobBench, Qwen3.8-27B leads at 33.4% vs Muse Spark at 17%. On GPQA Diamond, Muse Spark leads at 89.5% vs Qwen3.8-27B at 89.2%.
Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark was released by Meta on Apr 8 2026.
Qwen3.8-27B was released by Qwen on Aug 14 2026.
Qwen3.8-27B leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Muse Spark 55% vs Qwen3.8-27B 61.7%.
Muse Spark leads on GPQA Diamond — Muse Spark 89.5% vs Qwen3.8-27B 89.2%.
Muse Spark is a proprietary model released by Meta. Qwen3.8-27B is an open weight model released by Qwen.
Other comparisons
Muse SparkvsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-27BvsClaude Opus 5Muse SparkvsGPT-5.6-CyberQwen3.8-27BvsGPT-5.6-CyberMuse SparkvsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-27BvsGemini 3.7 FlashMuse SparkvsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-27BvsGrok 4.6Muse SparkvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-27BvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse SparkvsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-27BvsMistral Medium 3.5