Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Spark

Updated October 5, 2026. Rank says Muse Spark is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Muse Spark has the higher public score estimate, 59.99 versus 45.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Google logo

Google

45.94/100

Supported · Public rank #105

90% interval 31.6–60.3

Model B
Meta logo

Meta

59.99/100

Supported · Public rank #49

90% interval 50.6–69.3

Shared results
3
Gemma 4 26B A4B only
1
Muse Spark only
24
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8
Supported: Gemma 4 26B A4B and Muse SparkHow the comparison works

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

    Muse Spark has the higher public coding point estimate, 51.1 to 32.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Muse Spark

    Muse Spark has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Gemma 4 26B A4B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

32.6Gemma 4 26B A4B51.1Muse Spark

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Muse Spark has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Coding

Like-for-like
Gemma 4 26B A4B
32.6
Supported · #86/144
Muse Spark
51.1
Supported · #39/144
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Gemma 4 26B A4B
36.5
Supported · #109/171
Muse Spark
60.3
Supported · #40/171
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark leads

Multimodal

Directional only
Gemma 4 26B A4B
45.2
#42/49
Muse Spark
78.5
#14/49
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
Gemma 4 26B A4B
87.3
#30/125
Muse Spark
91.9
#8/125
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Not ranked
Muse Spark
49.8
Supported · #43/119
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemma 4 26B A4B
67.4
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Muse Spark
53.4
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Not ranked
Muse Spark
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Not ranked
Muse Spark
55.1
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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

Gemma 4 26B A4B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Muse Spark
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 4 26B A4B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Muse Spark
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 4 26B A4B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Muse Spark
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Gemma 4 26B A4B

No comparable hosted API rate

Muse Spark

No comparable hosted API rate

Provider availability

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, open weights

Google Gemma Gemini API guide

Muse Spark

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Reasoning

Muse Spark

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Open Weight

Muse Spark

Proprietary

License

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Open Weight

Muse Spark

Proprietary

Release date

Gemma 4 26B A4B

2026-04-02

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, 59.99 versus 45.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Muse Spark has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Muse Spark?

Muse Spark has the higher public score estimate, 59.99 versus 45.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Muse Spark?

Muse Spark has the higher public coding point estimate, 51.1 to 32.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Muse Spark?

Gemma 4 26B A4B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Gemma 4 26B A4B 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, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Muse Spark?

Muse Spark has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 256K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence28 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark59%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark91.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark74.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark43.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark63.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark77.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark52.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark80.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark19.67%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark74.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark42.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark80.4%
    Source

    Muse Spark leads this result

  • CharXiv

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark86.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark71.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark84.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark33.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark78.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    Gemma 4 26B A4B82.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Gemma 4 26B A4B17.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark50.4%
    Source

    Muse Spark leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Gemma 4 26B A4B8.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark42.8%
    Source

    Muse Spark leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark89.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark42.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark52.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark89.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark87.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark39.000%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemma 4 26B A4B—
    Muse Spark14.600%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

28 public results · 3 shared

Watch Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Spark

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

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 5, 2026