Llama 3.2 90B Instruct vs Muse Ember
Muse Ember leads the LLM Stats Score 45.9 to 4.6. Muse Ember is 1.8x cheaper per token.
Meta · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Muse Ember leads the overall LLM Stats Score 45.9 to 4.6, ranking #47 overall.
On price, Muse Ember is roughly 1.8x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Muse Ember also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose Muse Ember
- overall performance matters — it scores 45.9 and ranks #47 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- cost matters — it's about 1.8x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
13 reported for Llama 3.2 90B Instruct · 6 for Muse Ember
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct and Muse Emberdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens) is 3.5x more expensive than Muse Ember ($0.10/1M tokens).
For output processing, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.40/1M tokens) is 1.3x cheaper than Muse Ember ($0.50/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is more expensive than Muse Ember.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Muse Ember accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Muse Ember can generate longer responses up to 524,288 tokens, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Llama 3.2 90B Instruct and Muse Ember support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Muse Ember
License
Usage and distribution terms
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is licensed under Llama 3.2, while Muse Ember uses a proprietary license.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Llama 3.2
Open weights
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25, while Muse Ember was released on 2026-11-09.
Muse Ember is 26 months newer than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.
Sep 25, 2024
2.1 years ago
Nov 9, 2026
3 days ago
2.1yr newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Bedrock, Fireworks, Together, Hyperbolic. Muse Ember is available from Meta Model API.
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Muse Ember
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Llama 3.2 90B Instruct and Muse Ember side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Llama 3.2 90B Instruct vs Muse Ember.