Skip to main content

Model comparison

Muse Spark vs Qwen3.8 Max

Updated August 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Muse Spark

Meta

70.4/100

Supported · Public rank #16

90% interval 61.5–79.2

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba

65.4/100

Estimated · Public rank #31

90% interval 55.5–75.3

Muse Spark has the higher public score estimate, 70.36 versus 65.4, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

11 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

    Qwen3.8 Max

    Qwen3.8 Max 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

    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.

Shared results
11
Muse Spark only
13
Qwen3.8 Max only
41
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

2 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.

Multimodal

Like-for-like
Muse Spark
82.5
Qwen3.8 Max
86.3
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Qwen3.8 Max leads

Coding

Directional only
Muse Spark
67.8
Qwen3.8 Max
67.7
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Muse Spark
50.4
Qwen3.8 Max
50.2
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Muse Spark
59.0
Qwen3.8 Max
86.1
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Muse Spark
42.5
Qwen3.8 Max
78.3
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Muse Spark
32.9
Qwen3.8 Max
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Muse Spark
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Muse Spark
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
82.8
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 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

Muse Spark
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Muse Spark
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Muse Spark
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.8 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.8 Max 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.

Cached-input rate

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

Muse Spark

No comparable hosted API rate

Qwen3.8 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

Muse Spark

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Muse Spark

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

Muse Spark

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Muse Spark

Reasoning

Qwen3.8 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

Muse Spark

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Proprietary

License

Muse Spark

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Proprietary

Release date

Muse Spark

2026-04-08

Qwen3.8 Max

2026-08-03

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, 70.36 versus 65.4, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Qwen3.8 Max 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 evidence65 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Muse Spark59%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Muse Spark91.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Muse Spark74.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Muse Spark43.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Muse Spark63.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CoWorkBench

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max74.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max53.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • skillsBench

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max70.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max52.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max27.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max72.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max81.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max86.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max19.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max66.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max85.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MobileWorld

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Muse Spark77.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Muse Spark52.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max67.7%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    Muse Spark80.0%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Muse Spark19.67%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max56.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max55.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max73.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLS-Bench Lite

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max41.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PaperBench

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max93.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Muse Spark42.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCRv2

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max92.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max66.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Muse Spark89.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • HLE

    Muse Spark50.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
    Source

    Muse Spark leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Muse Spark42.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • HealthBench Hard

    Muse Spark42.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    Muse Spark52.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Muse Spark39.000%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Muse Spark14.600%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Muse Spark86.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max93.5%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • MMMU-Pro

    Muse Spark80.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max82.3%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • ERQA

    Muse Spark64.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • SimpleVQA

    Muse Spark71.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max75.0%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Muse Spark84.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max84.5%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • ZeroBench

    Muse Spark33.0%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max24.0%
    Source

    Muse Spark leads this result

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Muse Spark78.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max80.4%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • MathVision

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max95.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision w/ Python

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max97.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max82.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max91.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench w/ Python

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max49.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vision2Web

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max69.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max88.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max92.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OCRBench V2

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CC-OCR

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max79.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max88.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PerceptionBench

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max63.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max90.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max88.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMVU

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max82.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLVU (M-Avg)

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max90.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max81.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Muse Spark
    Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Muse Spark or Qwen3.8 Max?

Muse Spark has the higher public score estimate, 70.36 versus 65.4, 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 or Qwen3.8 Max?

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, Muse Spark or Qwen3.8 Max?

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 or Qwen3.8 Max?

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 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Related comparisons

Last updated August 3, 2026

Watch Muse Spark vs Qwen3.8 Max

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.