Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max: which should you choose in 2026?
Muse Spark 1.1 (by Meta) and Qwen3.8 Max (by Qwen) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
Neither Muse Spark 1.1 nor Qwen3.8 Max has a statistically clear lead across the 1 shared benchmark.
The available shared benchmark results are tied or do not support a statistically clear winner.
Muse Spark 1.1 is about 1.5× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($2.00 vs $3.00 per 1M tokens).
Choose Muse Spark 1.1 if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
Choose Qwen3.8 Max if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | 42.8% Artificial Analysis | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
Finance Agent v2 A Vals AI benchmark with 927 expert-reviewed questions modeling the work of entry-level financial analysts. Task score | 57.2% Vals AI | — |
JobBench A professional tool-use benchmark with 65 tasks spanning 35 white-collar occupations. Task score | 54.7% JobBench | — |
MCP Atlas A scaled tool-use benchmark with 1,000 multi-step tasks across 36 real MCP servers and 220 tools. Tasks completed | 88.1%±1.9 Scale AI | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | 80.8% Meta report | — |
A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests. Pass@1 Confidence intervals overlap; no decisive win is counted | 53.0%±3.0 DataCurve | 57.0%±3.0 DataCurve |
A contamination-resistant software-engineering benchmark with long-horizon tasks across multiple programming languages. Public and private splits are distinct protocols. Resolved | 61.5%±3.1 Scale AI | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | 80.0% Meta report | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | 92.7% Artificial Analysis |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy Protocols differ or are incompletely disclosed; not counted as a controlled win | 62.1% Meta report | 43.0% Artificial Analysis |
A contamination-resistant benchmark refreshed on a fixed release cadence. Scores from different LiveBench releases must never be compared as the same protocol. Mean of category averages Protocols differ or are incompletely disclosed; not counted as a controlled win | 75.3% LiveBench | 78.5% LiveBench |
BabyVision A 388-question visual-understanding benchmark covering fine-grained discrimination, spatial perception, tracking, and pattern recognition. Accuracy | 76.3% Meta report | — |
The chart-reasoning portion of CharXiv, evaluating visual and mathematical reasoning over scientific figures. Accuracy | 88.4% Meta report | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score | 1487 ±6Preliminary | — |
Human preference score for code and web development | 1536 ±10Preliminary | — |
Benchmark sources
- Arena AI leaderboard
- AutomationBench-AA: Agentic SaaS Workflow Benchmark
- Finance Agent v2 Leaderboard
- JobBench Leaderboard
- MCP Atlas Leaderboard
- Muse Spark 1.1 Evaluation Report
- DeepSWE 1.1 Leaderboard
- SWE-Bench Pro Public Leaderboard
- GPQA Diamond Benchmark Leaderboard
- Humanity's Last Exam Benchmark Leaderboard
- LiveBench 2026-06-25 Leaderboard
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Aug 9, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Meta | Qwen |
| API provider | Meta | Qwen |
| Input context | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Maximum output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Released | Jul 9, 2026 | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Jul 16, 2026 | Aug 3, 2026 |
| License | Proprietary | — |
| Knowledge cutoff | Not disclosed | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, Video, File, Audio | Text, Image, Video |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Tool use | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $1.25 | $2.00 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $4.25 | $6.00 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $2.00 | $3.00 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Muse Spark 1.1 Evaluation Report
- Meta Model API provider documentation
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Aug 3, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Muse Spark 1.1 from Meta with Qwen3.8 Max from Qwen? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.8 Max | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max FAQ
Which is better, Muse Spark 1.1 or Qwen3.8 Max?
Neither Muse Spark 1.1 nor Qwen3.8 Max has a statistically clear lead across the 1 shared benchmark. The available shared benchmark results are tied or do not support a statistically clear winner. Muse Spark 1.1 is about 1.5× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($2.00 vs $3.00 per 1M tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Muse Spark 1.1 is about 1.5× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($2.00 vs $3.00 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
The published context windows are close enough that this page does not treat the difference as a material advantage.
Can I switch between Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.8 Max?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.