Noometry

Model comparison

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen1.5-32B

Muse Spark 1.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Muse Spark 1.3 Meta

54.8

Rank #27 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Muse Spark 1.3 leads 73.1 to 33.0.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Muse Spark 1.3Qwen1.5-32B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index54.830.5
Released2026-09-022024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$4.25—
Results tracked3721

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

Category by category

Coding Muse Spark 1.3 leads

Muse Spark 1.3: 56.6 (#21), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding15141155
CursorBench41.6%—
LMArena WebDev1657—
SciCode59.7%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.3: 38.6 (#30), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.3Qwen1.5-32B
APEX-Agents57.8%—
GDP.pdf27.6%—

Reasoning Muse Spark 1.3 leads

Muse Spark 1.3: 54.0 (#27), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts15031130
NYT Connections (extended)85.1%—
CritPt26%—
Chess Puzzles38%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
DTBench96.5%—
LMCA53.9%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.75—

Math Muse Spark 1.3 leads

Muse Spark 1.3: 73.1 (#21), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math14941155
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)74.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 446.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202599.2%—
ProofBench58%—

Knowledge Muse Spark 1.3 leads

Muse Spark 1.3: 42.6 (#95), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Expert15161126
GPQA Diamond—30.7%
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Muse Spark 1.3: 43.7 (#22), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1309—
LMArena Document1471—

Multilingual Muse Spark 1.3 leads

Muse Spark 1.3: 57.4 (#8), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English14811106
LMArena Chinese15291177
LMArena French15241101
LMArena German15151058
LMArena Japanese14741027
LMArena Korean15011008
LMArena Russian14901073
LMArena Spanish14901089

Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.3 leads

Muse Spark 1.3: 77.5 (#22), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14771116

Long Context Muse Spark 1.3 leads

Muse Spark 1.3: 45.6 (#32), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query14881146

Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.3 leads

Muse Spark 1.3: 73.6 (#9), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text14901137
LMArena Creative Writing14551083
LMArena Multi-Turn14821140
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1906—

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Spark 1.3 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Muse Spark 1.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Muse Spark 1.3 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 56.6 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Muse Spark 1.3 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Muse Spark 1.3 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper