Muse Spark 1.2 vs Ministral 3 14B 2512: which should you choose in 2026?
Muse Spark 1.2 (by Meta) and Ministral 3 14B 2512 (by Mistral AI) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Ministral 3 14B 2512 is about 10.0× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.20 vs $2.00 per 1M tokens).
Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).
Choose Muse Spark 1.2 if…
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
Choose Ministral 3 14B 2512 if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
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 1.2 | Ministral 3 14B 2512 |
|---|---|---|
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 | — | — |
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 | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests. Pass@1 | 55.0%±2.0 DataCurve | — |
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 | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | 90.4% 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 | 45.5% 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 | 78.0% LiveBench | — |
Benchmark sources
- DeepSWE 1.1 Leaderboard
- GPQA Diamond Benchmark Leaderboard
- Humanity's Last Exam Benchmark Leaderboard
- LiveBench 2026-06-25 Leaderboard
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Muse Spark 1.2 | Ministral 3 14B 2512 |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Meta | Mistral AI |
| API provider | Meta | Mistral |
| Input context | 1,048,576 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Maximum output | — | — |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Aug 5, 2026 | Dec 2, 2025 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, Video, File, Audio | Text, Image |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $1.25 | $0.20 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $4.25 | $0.20 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $2.00 | $0.20 |
| 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
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Aug 5, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Muse Spark 1.2 from Meta with Ministral 3 14B 2512 from Mistral AI? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Muse Spark 1.2 | Ministral 3 14B 2512 | 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 1.2 vs Ministral 3 14B 2512 FAQ
Which is better, Muse Spark 1.2 or Ministral 3 14B 2512?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Ministral 3 14B 2512 is about 10.0× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.20 vs $2.00 per 1M tokens). Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Ministral 3 14B 2512 is about 10.0× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.20 vs $2.00 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).
Can I switch between Muse Spark 1.2 and Ministral 3 14B 2512?
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.
Related comparisons
More Muse Spark 1.2 comparisons
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a high-efficiency model from Google for coding, agentic workflows, and web and app development.
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is a high-efficiency model from Google with upgraded agentic capabilities.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash is Google's high-efficiency multimodal model, bringing near-Pro level coding and reasoning at Flash-tier cost and speed.
MiMo-V2.5
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5 is a native omnimodal model by Xiaomi.
Nova 2 Lite
Amazon
Nova 2 Lite is a fast, cost-effective reasoning model for everyday workloads that can process text, images, and videos to generate text.
Sakana Namazu
Sakana AI
Sakana Namazu is a Japanese-specialized reasoning model from Sakana AI, based on Kimi K2.6 with additional training for Japanese language and business contexts.
More Ministral 3 14B 2512 comparisons
Sakana Namazu
Sakana AI
Sakana Namazu is a Japanese-specialized reasoning model from Sakana AI, based on Kimi K2.6 with additional training for Japanese language and business contexts.
Muse Glimmer 30B
Meta
Muse Glimmer 30B is a dense, open-weight multimodal model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, distilled from Muse Spark and optimized for autonomous agents on consumer hardware.
Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship model in Alibaba's Qwen3.8 series, the general-availability successor to the Qwen3.8 Max Preview.
Seed-2.0-Code
ByteDance
Seed 2.0 Code is a model from ByteDance Seed optimized for agentic coding.
Inkling Small
Thinking Machines
Inkling Small is an open-weight multimodal mixture-of-experts model from Thinking Machines Lab, with 12B active parameters out of 276B total.
Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen
Qwen3.7 Flash is a vision-language reasoning model from Alibaba.