Agentic
Not comparable- Muse Spark 1.2
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- 67.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Updated August 19, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public score estimate, 61.66 versus 49.27, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
3 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
Muse Spark 1.2
Muse Spark 1.2 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
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
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.
3 Shared
15 Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B only
- Shared results
- 3
- Muse Spark 1.2 only
- 0
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B only
- 15
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
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.
Coding
Not comparable- Muse Spark 1.2
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- 71.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Muse Spark 1.2
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Muse Spark 1.2
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- 34.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Muse Spark 1.2
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Muse Spark 1.2
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Muse Spark 1.2
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Muse Spark 1.2
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Muse Spark 1.2 | Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | 67.6 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 71.5 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 34.2 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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
- Muse Spark 1.2
- $0.00338
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Muse Spark 1.2
- $0.07525
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Muse Spark 1.2
- $0.0975
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B 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.
SpecificationMuse Spark 1.2Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Muse Spark 1.2
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
API model ID
Muse Spark 1.2
muse-spark-1.2
Meta: Muse Spark 1.2 model pageOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Muse Spark 1.2
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Meta: Muse Spark 1.2 model pageOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B
No comparable hosted API rate
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B model cardDocumented inputs
Muse Spark 1.2
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Muse Spark 1.2
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Muse Spark 1.2
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Muse Spark 1.2
Reasoning
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Reasoning
Weight access
Muse Spark 1.2
Proprietary
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Open Weight
License
Muse Spark 1.2
Proprietary
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Open Weight
Release date
Muse Spark 1.2
2026-08-05
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
2026-08-18
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 score estimate, 61.66 versus 49.27, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- 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.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence18 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Muse Spark 1.282.9%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%SourceMuse Spark 1.2 leads this result
HLE w/ tools
Muse Spark 1.2—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B33.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Muse Spark 1.2—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B70.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Muse Spark 1.2—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Muse Spark 1.2—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Muse Spark 1.2—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Muse Spark 1.2—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B72.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Muse Spark 1.282.9%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%SourceMuse Spark 1.2 leads this result
deepSwe
Muse Spark 1.259.3%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B22%SourceMuse Spark 1.2 leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
Muse Spark 1.2—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B79%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Muse Spark 1.2—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B59.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Muse Spark 1.2—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B71.4%SourceNot directly comparable
frontierBench
Muse Spark 1.2—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B5.1%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Muse Spark 1.2—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B46.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Muse Spark 1.2 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?
Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public score estimate, 61.66 versus 49.27, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Muse Spark 1.2 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Muse Spark 1.2 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Muse Spark 1.2 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?
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, Muse Spark 1.2 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?
Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 19, 2026
Watch Muse Spark 1.2 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.