Muse SparkvsQwen3.8-Max
Muse Spark | Qwen3.8-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 2.4T |
Context window | — | 1M |
| 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% | 67.7%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% | — |
Research reproduction PaperBenchreproducing the results of an ML research paper end to end | — | 93% |
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% | 86.6%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% | 53.4%Best |
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 · 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% | — |
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% | 86.1%Best |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 88.9%Best | 88.4% |
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% | 82%Best |
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 3 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Muse Spark or Qwen3.8-Max?
Qwen3.8-Max leads Muse Spark on 5 of the 6 benchmarks they both report. Muse Spark shipped 117 days before Qwen3.8-Max, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 67.7% vs Muse Spark at 55%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 86.6% vs Muse Spark at 67.3%. On JobBench, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 53.4% vs Muse Spark at 17%. On OSWorld-Verified, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 86.1% vs Muse Spark at 53.3%. On CharXiv Reasoning, Muse Spark leads at 88.9% vs Qwen3.8-Max at 88.4%. On BabyVision, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 82% vs Muse Spark at 39.9%.
Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark was released by Meta on Apr 8 2026.
Qwen3.8-Max was released by Qwen on Aug 3 2026.
Qwen3.8-Max leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Muse Spark 55% vs Qwen3.8-Max 67.7%.
Other comparisons
Muse SparkvsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-MaxvsClaude Opus 5Muse SparkvsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-MaxvsGPT-5.6 SolMuse SparkvsGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.8-MaxvsGemini 3.6 FlashMuse SparkvsGrok 4.5Qwen3.8-MaxvsGrok 4.5Muse SparkvsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Qwen3.8-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Muse SparkvsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-MaxvsMistral Medium 3.5