Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched at 50.3 and 49.6 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3.8 Flash is 8.7x cheaper per token.
Meta · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 50.3 and 49.6.
In the 6 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8 Flash wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3.8 Flash is roughly 8.7x 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.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Muse Spark 1.1
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
Choose Qwen3.8 Flash
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 6 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 8.7x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
11 reported for Muse Spark 1.1 · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash
Muse Spark 1.1 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, Toolathlon), while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 4 benchmarks (CharXiv-R, DeepSWE 1.1, Job Bench, SWE-Bench Pro).
Qwen3.8 Flash shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Muse Spark 1.1 ($1.25/1M tokens) is 8.3x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, Muse Spark 1.1 ($4.25/1M tokens) is 9.0x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Muse Spark 1.1 is more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash.*
* 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 Qwen3.8 Flash's 1,000,000 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Muse Spark 1.1
Qwen3.8 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.
Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.
Proprietary
Closed source
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Muse Spark 1.1 was released on 2026-07-09, while Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.
Qwen3.8 Flash is 2 months newer than Muse Spark 1.1.
Jul 9, 2026
1 months ago
Aug 26, 2026
5 days ago
1mo newerKnowledge 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. Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita.
Muse Spark 1.1
Qwen3.8 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash.