Model Comparison
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17BWhich is better in 2026?
Muse Spark 1.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is 1.5x cheaper per token.
Verdict: Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B — which is better?
Muse Spark 1.1 (by Meta) and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B (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.
Muse Spark 1.1 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, Toolathlon), while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is better at 0 benchmarks. Muse Spark 1.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
On price, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is roughly 1.5x 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 want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 2 of 2 shared benchmarks
- 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 Qwen3.5-397B-A17B if…
- cost matters — it's about 1.5x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Performance Benchmarks
Comparative analysis across standard metrics
Muse Spark 1.1 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, Toolathlon), while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is better at 0 benchmarks.
Muse Spark 1.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Arena Performance
Human preference votes
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Muse Spark 1.1 ($1.25/1M tokens) is 2.1x more expensive than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($0.60/1M tokens).
For output processing, Muse Spark 1.1 ($4.25/1M tokens) is 1.2x more expensive than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($3.60/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Muse Spark 1.1 is more expensive than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Muse Spark 1.1 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.5-397B-A17B's 262,144 tokens. Muse Spark 1.1 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is limited to 64,000 tokens.
Input Capabilities
Supported data types and modalities
Both Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Muse Spark 1.1
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
License
Usage and distribution terms
Muse Spark 1.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Muse Spark 1.1 was released on 2026-07-09, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B was released on 2026-02-16.
Muse Spark 1.1 is 5 months newer than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.
Jul 9, 2026
1 weeks ago
4mo newerFeb 16, 2026
5 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Muse Spark 1.1 is available from Meta Model API. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is available from Novita.
Muse Spark 1.1
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Outputs Comparison
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
View detailsAlibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Detailed Comparison
Interactive Arena
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
| Feature | | |
|---|
FAQ
Common questions about Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.