The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct vs Muse Spark Open

Muse Spark Open leads the LLM Stats Score 44.9 to 4.9. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 5.5x cheaper per token.

Meta · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Muse Spark Open leads the overall LLM Stats Score 44.9 to 4.9, ranking #43 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Muse Spark Open wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is roughly 5.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Muse Spark Open 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

  • cost matters — it's about 5.5x cheaper per token

Choose Muse Spark Open

  • overall performance matters — it scores 44.9 and ranks #43 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Meta
Muse Spark Open
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
4.9
#321
44.9
#43
Reasoning
6.4
#309
45.2
#39
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 1
1 of 1
Input price
$0.35 / M
$1.25 / M
Output price
$0.40 / M
$4.25 / M
Context window
128,000
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Muse Spark Open
Math
11.5#250
31.6#69
Vision
2.8#184
31.2#34
Multimodal
5.5#155
33.1#20
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

13 reported for Llama 3.2 90B Instruct · 17 for Muse Spark Open

1 shared

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Muse Spark Open is better at 1 benchmark (GPQA).

Muse Spark Open significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens) is 3.6x cheaper than Muse Spark Open ($1.25/1M tokens).

For output processing, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.40/1M tokens) is 10.6x cheaper than Muse Spark Open ($4.25/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Muse Spark Open is more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input tokens$0.35
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerDeepinfra
Meta
Muse Spark Open
Input tokens$1.25
Output tokens$4.25
Best providerTogether
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

726.0B diff

Muse Spark Open has 726.0B more parameters than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct, making it 806.7% larger.

Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
90.0Bparameters
Meta
Muse Spark Open
816.0Bparameters
90.0B
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
816.0B
Muse Spark Open

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Muse Spark Open accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Muse Spark Open can generate longer responses up to 1,048,576 tokens, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Meta
Muse Spark Open
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output1,048,576 tokens
Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Llama 3.2 90B Instruct and Muse Spark Open support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Muse Spark Open

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is licensed under Llama 3.2, while Muse Spark Open uses Muse Model License.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2

Open weights

Muse Spark Open

Muse Model License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25, while Muse Spark Open was released on 2026-10-15.

Muse Spark Open is 25 months newer than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

2.1 years ago

Muse Spark Open

Oct 15, 2026

2 days ago

2.1yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Bedrock, Fireworks, Together, Hyperbolic. Muse Spark Open is available from Together.

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.35/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.72/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.72/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $1.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.00/1M

Muse Spark Open

together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $1.25/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.25/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Llama 3.2 90B Instruct and Muse Spark Open side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
✓ Preferred
Muse Spark Open
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Llama 3.2 90B Instruct vs Muse Spark Open.

Which is better, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct or Muse Spark Open?

Muse Spark Open leads the LLM Stats Score 44.9 to 4.9. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is made by Meta and Muse Spark Open is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Llama 3.2 90B Instruct compare to Muse Spark Open in benchmarks?

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct scores AI2D: 92.3%, DocVQA: 90.1%, MGSM: 86.9%, MMLU: 86.0%, ChartQA: 85.5%. Muse Spark Open scores MCP Atlas: 89.2%, GPQA: 89.0%, OSWorld-Verified: 80.4%, BabyVision: 80.2%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 76.4%.

Is Llama 3.2 90B Instruct cheaper than Muse Spark Open?

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 3.6x cheaper for input tokens. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct costs $0.35/M input and $0.40/M output via deepinfra. Muse Spark Open costs $1.25/M input and $4.25/M output via together.

What are the context window sizes for Llama 3.2 90B Instruct and Muse Spark Open?

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports 128K tokens and Muse Spark Open supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Llama 3.2 90B Instruct and Muse Spark Open?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (4.9 vs 44.9), context window (128K vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.35 vs $1.25/M), licensing (Llama 3.2 vs Muse Model License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Related comparisons