Compare / Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Muse Spark 1.3
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Muse Spark 1.3
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 78 results on 6 sources that measured both models.
AlibabaQwen3.8-Max (0902)
MetaMuse Spark 1.3
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) wins 1419 too close to callMuse Spark 1.3 wins 45
Of the 78 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 13 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-13-2e2420e3c5cc). See also Alibaba vs Meta, every model from both labs.
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Muse Spark 1.3? The short answer
Pick Muse Spark 1.3: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 64 against 47) and costs less.
- Spring Prompt overall: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) 47, Muse Spark 1.3 64 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper to run: $0.016 against $0.026 per product listing on CatalogBench (36% less).
- Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 48.1 against 45.4.
- Muse Spark 1.3 writes faster: 114 tokens a second against 37.
- Muse Spark 1.3 is newer: released 2 Sep 2026, against 3 Aug 2026 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) does better for decks from an analysis; Muse Spark 1.3 for product listings and marketing planning.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) does better for agents and tool use; Muse Spark 1.3 for professional work, reasoning and knowledge and writing.
Head to head
47
Spring Prompt overall
64
45.4
Intelligence Index
48.1
$3.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$2.00
37
Output speed, tokens a second
114
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Muse Spark 1.3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $6.00 out | $1.25 in · $4.25 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $3.00 | $2.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.026 | $0.016 |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.15 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 45.4 | 48.1 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 47 | 64 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 37 | 114 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 3 Aug 2026 | 2 Sep 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
18 of 21
10 of 21
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
12 of 20
13 of 20
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
15 of 20
13 of 20
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
7 of 164
9 of 164
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
18 of 51
8 of 51
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
17 of 198
8 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
16 of 188
5 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
38 of 152
11 of 152
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
25 of 25
21 of 24
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 15 · 12 of 21 measured | $0.0256 | $0.0164 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 14 · 8 of 21 measured | 28.6% | 48.2% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 19 · 10 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 10.7% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 11 · 7 of 20 measured | $0.15 | $0.0463 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 12 · 13 of 20 measured | 1,076 | 879 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 9 · 14 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 16.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 15 · 13 of 20 measured | 25.4 | 34.1 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 18 · 13 of 20 measured | 39.7 | 51.6 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 15 · 13 of 20 measured | 15.6 | 25.8 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 20 · 8 of 387 measured | 1,482 | 1,494max reasoning |
| Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 22 · 13 of 163 measured | 1,472 | 1,480max reasoning |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 16 · 4 of 380 measured | 1,484 | 1,505max reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 14 · 9 of 243 measured | 45.4 | 48.1max reasoning |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 15 · 5 of 231 measured | 92.8% | 94.1%xhigh reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 24 · 11 of 242 measured | 43.1% | 48.7%max reasoning |
| GDP.pdf reported by GDP.pdf · 1 result | ||
| Professional document tasks% of rubric, higher is better 13 · 5 of 32 measured | 23.2%xhigh reasoning | 27.6% |
Show all 78 results (62 more)
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 27 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 11 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 1 of 21 measured | 3.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 14 · 1 of 21 measured | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 19 · 7 of 21 measured | 94.2% | 97.7% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 20 · 5 of 21 measured | 93.6% | 98.2% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 17 · 6 of 21 measured | 93.3% | 97.6% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 20 · 1 of 21 measured | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 1 of 21 measured | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 20 · 12 of 21 measured | 90.3% | 92.9% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 16 · 5 of 21 measured | 2.7% | 0.7% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 4 · 12 of 21 measured | 3.6% | 6.0% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 11 of 21 measured | 1.8% | 5.4% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 13 · 8 of 21 measured | 50.0% | 65.5% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 19 · 8 of 21 measured | 7.7% | 34.5% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 11 · 6 of 21 measured | 0.69 | 0.44 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 11 · 8 of 21 measured | 26.8% | 14.9% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 20 · 9 of 21 measured | 4.52 | 1.50 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 9 of 21 measured | 84.5% | 57.7% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 17 · 9 of 21 measured | 21.4% | 16.7% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 14 · 4 of 21 measured | 19.6% | 14.3% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 4 · 18 of 21 measured | 1.8% | 4.2% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 10 · 17 of 21 measured | 2.4% | 3.6% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 13 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 11 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 20 of 20 measured | 66.7% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 10 · 15 of 20 measured | 67.0% | 56.1% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 9 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 16.7% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 11 · 13 of 20 measured | 61.3% | 43.7% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 20 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 100.0% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 12 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 17 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 66.7% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 10 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 50.0% |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 11 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 14 · 11 of 20 measured | 19.3 | 26.7 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 15 · 12 of 20 measured | $99,775 | $337,251 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 16 · 9 of 20 measured | $0.73 | $0.18 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 18 · 1 of 20 measured | 2 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 10 · 8 of 20 measured | 54.8 | 54.8 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 15 · 12 of 20 measured | $0.09 | $0.29 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 8 results | ||
| Confirmed task success · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 20 · 18 of 48 measured | 0.05arena agent | 0.05max reasoning, arena agent |
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 17 · 22 of 385 measured | 1,468 | 1,459max reasoning |
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 20 · 12 of 338 measured | 1,513 | 1,529max reasoning |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 25 · 13 of 387 measured | 1,474 | 1,486max reasoning |
| Praise over complaint · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 20 · 21 of 48 measured | 0.03arena agent | 0.03max reasoning, arena agent |
| Steerability · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 18 · 12 of 48 measured | 0.03arena agent | 0.05max reasoning, arena agent |
| Tool grounding · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 43 · 14 of 48 measured | -0.01arena agent | 0.00max reasoning, arena agent |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 18 · 19 of 386 measured | 1,472 | 1,470max reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 8 results | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.1% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 11 of 130 measured | 88.8% | 85.4%xhigh reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 15 of 112 measured | 38.9% | 33.3%max reasoning |
| τ-bench banking% of tasks, higher is better 7 · 3 of 121 measured | 47.8% | 50.5%max reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score, higher is better 10 · 7 of 131 measured | 76.2 | 76.5xhigh reasoning |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 35 · 15 of 233 measured | 80.3% | 83.0%max reasoning |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 71 · 29 of 74 measured | 37.0 | 114xhigh reasoning |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 36 · 8 of 113 measured | 52.1% | 59.7%xhigh reasoning |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 74 · 70 of 74 measured | 55.8 | 45.4xhigh reasoning |
Compare them with other models
- Alibaba vs MetaEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Claude Haiku 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs Claude Fable 5.1Just above overall
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Just below overall
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.8-Max (0902) better than Muse Spark 1.3?
Pick Muse Spark 1.3: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 64 against 47) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper to run: $0.016 against $0.026 per product listing on CatalogBench (36% less).
Which is faster, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 writes about 114 tokens a second on its usual API, against 37 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902) (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for product listings, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 ranks 10 of 21 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 18 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Muse Spark 1.3?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 12 of 20 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 13 for Muse Spark 1.3.
Which is better for marketing planning, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 ranks 13 of 20 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 15 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Muse Spark 1.3?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 7 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 9 for Muse Spark 1.3.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Run Qwen3.8-Max (0902) and Muse Spark 1.3 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.