Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google

64.4/100

Estimated · Public rank #39

90% interval 54.0–74.7

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1

Updated August 22, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Muse Spark 1.1

Meta

76.7/100

Supported · Public rank #7

90% interval 72.6–80.9

Decision reading

Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 76.74 versus 64.38, 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.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Muse Spark 1.1

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Muse Spark 1.1

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.

    Confidence: limited

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

  • 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.

Shared results
10
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
12
Muse Spark 1.1 only
11
Like-for-like categories
3 / 8

1 category uses 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.

Agentic

Like-for-like
Gemini 3.5 Flash
77.2
Muse Spark 1.1
80.4
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Coding

Like-for-like
Gemini 3.5 Flash
55.1
Muse Spark 1.1
61.5
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Gemini 3.5 Flash
40.2
Muse Spark 1.1
62.1
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Multimodal

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
83.8
Muse Spark 1.1
88.4
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
74.7
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
32.9
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
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.

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 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Muse Spark 1.1 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 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Muse Spark 1.1 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 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Muse Spark 1.1 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

1M

Google Gemini API pricing

Muse Spark 1.1

1M

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 pricing

Muse Spark 1.1

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Reasoning

Muse Spark 1.1

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

License

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

Release date

Gemini 3.5 Flash

2026-05-19

Muse Spark 1.1

2026-07-09

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 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 76.74 versus 64.38, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 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 evidence33 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.180%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.188.1%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • Toolathlon

    Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.175.6%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.180.8%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • Finance Agent v2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.157.2%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • Gert Labs

    Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.169%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.184.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.159.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.153.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.114.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.154.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Cybench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.192.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.10.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.180.0%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.161.5%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench31

    Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCRv2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash77.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCR 1M

    Gemini 3.5 Flash26.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.154.1%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash72.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.162.1%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.152.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.159.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash38.966%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash14.583%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.188.4%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Blueprint-Bench 2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.176.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 76.74 versus 64.38, 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 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.

Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?

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 1.1?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 22, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.