Model Comparison

Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3-CoderWhich is better in 2026?

Comparing Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3-Coder across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Verdict: Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3-Coder — which is better?

Muse Spark 1.1 (by Meta) and Qwen3-Coder (by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

On price, Qwen3-Coder is roughly 11.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Muse Spark 1.1 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Choose Muse Spark 1.1 if…

  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jul 2026

Choose Qwen3-Coder if…

  • cost matters — it's about 11.1x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3-Coderdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3-Coder costs less

For input processing, Muse Spark 1.1 ($1.25/1M tokens) is 6.9x more expensive than Qwen3-Coder ($0.18/1M tokens).

For output processing, Muse Spark 1.1 ($4.25/1M tokens) is 23.6x more expensive than Qwen3-Coder ($0.18/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Muse Spark 1.1 is more expensive than Qwen3-Coder.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Jul 28 2026 • llm-stats.com
Meta
Muse Spark 1.1
Input tokens$1.25
Output tokens$4.25
Best providerMeta
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-Coder
Input tokens$0.18
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Muse Spark 1.1 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3-Coder's 256,000 tokens. Qwen3-Coder can generate longer responses up to 256,000 tokens, while Muse Spark 1.1 is limited to 131,072 tokens.

Meta
Muse Spark 1.1
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-Coder
Input256,000 tokens
Output256,000 tokens
Tue Jul 28 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Muse Spark 1.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen3-Coder does not.

Muse Spark 1.1 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Muse Spark 1.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3-Coder

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Muse Spark 1.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3-Coder uses Apache 2.0.

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

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3-Coder

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Muse Spark 1.1 was released on 2026-07-09, while Qwen3-Coder was released on 2025-01-01.

Muse Spark 1.1 is 18 months newer than Qwen3-Coder.

Muse Spark 1.1

Jul 9, 2026

2 weeks ago

1.5yr newer
Qwen3-Coder

Jan 1, 2025

1.6 years ago

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

Muse Spark 1.1 is available from Meta Model API. Qwen3-Coder is available from DeepInfra, Fireworks.

Muse Spark 1.1

meta logo
Meta
Input Price:Input: $1.25/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.25/1M

Qwen3-Coder

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.25/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.25/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Key Takeaways

Larger context window (1,048,576 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Qwen3-Coder

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

Interactive Arena

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3-Coder side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Muse Spark 1.1
✓ Preferred
Qwen3-Coder
Open in Playground
AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Meta
Muse Spark 1.1
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-Coder

FAQ

Common questions about Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3-Coder.

Which is better, Muse Spark 1.1 or Qwen3-Coder?

Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta) and Qwen3-Coder (Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.

How does Muse Spark 1.1 compare to Qwen3-Coder in benchmarks?

Muse Spark 1.1 scores CharXiv-R: 88.4%, MCP Atlas: 88.1%, OSWorld-Verified: 80.8%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 80.0%, BabyVision: 76.3%.

Is Muse Spark 1.1 cheaper than Qwen3-Coder?

Qwen3-Coder is 6.9x cheaper for input tokens. Muse Spark 1.1 costs $1.25/M input and $4.25/M output via meta. Qwen3-Coder costs $0.18/M input and $0.18/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3-Coder?

Muse Spark 1.1 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3-Coder supports 256K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3-Coder?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 256K), input pricing ($1.25 vs $0.18/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3-Coder?

Muse Spark 1.1 is developed by Meta and Qwen3-Coder is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.