Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Ling 3.0 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2

Updated November 4, 2026. Rank says Muse Spark 1.2 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public point estimate, 65.41 versus 45.33. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 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
InclusionAI logo

InclusionAI

45.33/100

Estimated · Public rank #116

Conditional range 31.0–59.7

Model B
Meta logo

Meta

65.41/100

Supported · Public rank #28

90% interval 59.0–71.8

Shared results
3
Ling 3.0 Flash only
21
Muse Spark 1.2 only
6
Like-for-like categories
3 / 8
Estimated: Ling 3.0 Flash · Supported: Muse Spark 1.2. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How 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 1.2

    Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public coding point estimate, 52.8 to 32.2, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

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

    Muse Spark 1.2

    Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 59.9 to 34.3, 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 1.2

    Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • 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.

32.2Ling 3.0 Flash52.8Muse Spark 1.2

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Muse Spark 1.2 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.

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.

Agentic

Like-for-like
Ling 3.0 Flash
34.3
Supported · #94/135
Muse Spark 1.2
59.9
Supported · #31/135
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark 1.2 leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like
Ling 3.0 Flash
32.2
Supported · #97/156
Muse Spark 1.2
52.8
Supported · #37/156
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark 1.2 leads · intervals overlap

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Ling 3.0 Flash
42.1
Supported · #108/179
Muse Spark 1.2
64.7
Supported · #33/179
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Reasoning

Not comparable
Ling 3.0 Flash
75.1
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Muse Spark 1.2
79.3
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Ling 3.0 Flash
75.2
#72/157
Muse Spark 1.2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Ling 3.0 Flash
81.1
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Muse Spark 1.2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 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

Ling 3.0 Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.2
$0.00338
Fits in one request

Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Ling 3.0 Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.2
$0.07525
Fits in one request

Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Ling 3.0 Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Muse Spark 1.2
$0.0975
Fits in one request

Ling 3.0 Flash 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.

Documented inputs

Ling 3.0 Flash

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.2

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Ling 3.0 Flash

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.2

Not sourced

Provider availability

Ling 3.0 Flash

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.2

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Ling 3.0 Flash

Reasoning

Muse Spark 1.2

Reasoning

Weight access

Ling 3.0 Flash

Open Weight

Muse Spark 1.2

Proprietary

License

Ling 3.0 Flash

Open Weight

Muse Spark 1.2

Proprietary

Release date

Ling 3.0 Flash

2026-07-23

Muse Spark 1.2

2026-08-05

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 1.2 has the higher public point estimate, 65.41 versus 45.33. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Ling 3.0 Flash or Muse Spark 1.2?

Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public point estimate, 65.41 versus 45.33. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Ling 3.0 Flash or Muse Spark 1.2?

Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public coding point estimate, 52.8 to 32.2, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Ling 3.0 Flash or Muse Spark 1.2?

Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 59.9 to 34.3, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, Ling 3.0 Flash or Muse Spark 1.2?

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, Ling 3.0 Flash or Muse Spark 1.2?

Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Ling 3.0 Flash
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$6,990
Break-even—
Muse Spark 1.2
API / mo$4,125
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence30 rows

Agentic

  • MCP Atlas

    Ling 3.0 Flash65.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • skillsBench

    Ling 3.0 Flash44.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • BFCL v4

    Ling 3.0 Flash73.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Ling 3.0 Flash73.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Ling 3.0 Flash72.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    Ling 3.0 Flash70.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Ling 3.0 Flash50.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.269.7%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.2 leads this result

  • Hermes Index

    Ling 3.0 Flash21.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Bench

    Ling 3.0 Flash53.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.282.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.20%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Ling 3.0 Flash56.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Ling 3.0 Flash72.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v5

    Ling 3.0 Flash82.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Ling 3.0 Flash41.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Ling 3.0 Flash84.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Ling 3.0 Flash65.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.286.6%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.2 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.282.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.259.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.287.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Ling 3.0 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.212.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Ling 3.0 Flash85.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Ling 3.0 Flash85.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Ling 3.0 Flash22.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Ling 3.0 Flash84.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Ling 3.0 Flash82.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.288.3%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.2 leads this result

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Ling 3.0 Flash74.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Ling 3.0 Flash93.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Ling 3.0 Flash87.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    Ling 3.0 Flash83.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

30 public results · 3 shared

Watch Ling 3.0 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.2

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

Read a sample issue

Join 6,100+ subscribers.

Last updated November 4, 2026