Muse Spark 1.3 (Max) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: Muse Spark 1.3 (Max) by Meta or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Muse Spark 1.3 (Max) scores 8.3 points higher (48.1 vs 39.8) but costs 5.5× as much to run the benchmark ($2000 vs $363; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Muse Spark 1.3 (Max) when you need intelligence above 39.8, and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when 39.8 is enough.
| Metric | Muse Spark 1.3 (Max) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 48.1 | 39.8 | −17.3% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 17.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,000.35 | $362.72 | −81.9% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 81.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 63.86s | 50.51s | −20.9% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 20.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.25 / $4.25 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Muse Spark 1.3 (Max): 17.3% less intelligence, 81.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 20.9% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Muse Spark 1.3 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Muse Spark 1.3 (Max)Qwen3.8-Flash-NextToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/muse-spark-1-3/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/muse-spark-1-3/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill