Knowledge
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 40.2
- Muse Spark
- 50.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Muse Spark leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Muse Spark
Updated August 18, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Muse Spark has the higher public score estimate, 70.81 versus 64.67, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
10 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
13 Gemini 3.5 Flash only
10 Shared
14 Muse Spark only
- Shared results
- 10
- Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- 13
- Muse Spark only
- 14
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 / 8
3 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Math
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 32.9
- Muse Spark
- 32.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Tie
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 83.8
- Muse Spark
- 82.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Agentic
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 77.2
- Muse Spark
- 59.0
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 55.1
- Muse Spark
- 67.8
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 74.7
- Muse Spark
- 42.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Muse Spark | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 40.2 | 50.4 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Muse Spark leads |
| Math | 32.9 | 32.9 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Tie |
| Multimodal | 83.8 | 82.5 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads |
| Agentic | 77.2 | 59.0 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 55.1 | 67.8 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 74.7 | 42.5 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
ARC-AGI-2
Reasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 72.1%Muse Spark: 42.5%Normalized gap 29.6Gemini 3.5 Flash source Muse Spark sourceTerminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
HLE
Knowledge
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 40.2%Muse Spark: 50.4%Normalized gap 10.2Gemini 3.5 Flash source Muse Spark sourceMMMU-Pro
Multimodal
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.006
- Fits in one request
- Muse Spark
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.102
- Fits in one request
- Muse Spark
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
- Muse Spark
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 3.5 FlashMuse Spark
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Muse Spark
262K
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash
gemini-3.5-flash
Google Gemini API pricingMuse Spark
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingMuse Spark
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Reasoning
Muse Spark
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Muse Spark
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Muse Spark
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash
2026-05-19
Muse Spark
2026-04-08
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Muse Spark has the higher public score estimate, 70.81 versus 64.67, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence37 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceMuse Spark59%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark91.5%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark74.8%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark43.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark63.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%SourceMuse Spark52.4%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash48.68%Muse Spark19.67%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
cursorBench31
Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
EEBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash34.3%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark80.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%SourceMuse Spark89.5%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%SourceMuse Spark50.4%SourceMuse Spark leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark42.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark42.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark52.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash38.966%Muse Spark39.000%Muse Spark leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash14.583%Muse Spark14.600%Muse Spark leads this result
Multimodal
CharXiv
Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%SourceMuse Spark86.4%SourceMuse Spark leads this result
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceMuse Spark80.4%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Blueprint-Bench 2
Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark71.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark84.1%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark33.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Muse Spark78.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Muse Spark?
Muse Spark has the higher public score estimate, 70.81 versus 64.67, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Muse Spark?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Muse Spark?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Muse Spark?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Muse Spark?
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 18, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Muse Spark
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.