Noometry

Model comparison

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Muse Spark 1.2 Meta

50.3

Rank #48 Confirmed

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

39.4

Rank #168 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 51.3 to 26.4.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Muse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderMetaAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index50.339.4
Released2026-08-05—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$4.25—
Results tracked3116

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 49.2 (#51), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding14951347
DeepSWE54.9%—
LMArena WebDev1533—
FrontierSWE12%—
SciCode56.4%—
WeirdML60.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 29.4 (#87), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
APEX-Agents36.4%—
GDP.pdf16%—

Reasoning Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 51.3 (#34), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14861322
SimpleBench74.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)79.2%—
CritPt17.7%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA48.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index154.87—

Math Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 46.4 (#70), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math14711305
ProofBench43%—

Knowledge Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 54.1 (#53), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert14801308
SimpleQA Verified60.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.2: 43.4 (#25), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Vision1305—

Multilingual Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 57.1 (#11), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14781275
LMArena Chinese15111304
LMArena French15131328
LMArena Russian14871268
LMArena Spanish14981336
LMArena German—1282
LMArena Korean—1206

Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 76.7 (#36), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14611299

Long Context Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 45.2 (#48), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14751312

Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Muse Spark 1.2: 72.3 (#14), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text14821311
LMArena Creative Writing14491264
LMArena Multi-Turn14941309
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Spark 1.2 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Muse Spark 1.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Muse Spark 1.2 or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.2 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Spark 1.2 and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark 1.2 has 31 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper