ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 27B vs GLM-5.3

Muse Spark 1.2 comes out ahead, 72 to 67 and 64 on our weighted score, though Qwen3.8 27B is 2.2× cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Meta

    Muse Spark 1.2

    Released Aug 5, 2026

    72/100
    • ECI155.0
    • Price$1.25 / $4.25
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Muse Spark 1.2

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.8 27B

    Released Aug 14, 2026

    67/100
    • ECI149.4
    • Price$0.40 / $2.50
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.8 27B

  3. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-5.3

    Released Aug 14, 2026

    64/100
    • ECI155.8
    • Price$1.40 / $4.40
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove GLM-5.3
01 — Verdict

Muse Spark 1.2 is our pick

Muse Spark 1.2 is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against Qwen3.8 27B (67) and GLM-5.3 (64). It leads on inputs & features. Qwen3.8 27B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGLM-5.3Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-5.3 155.8 · Muse Spark 1.2 155.0 · Qwen3.8 27B 149.4
  • Lowest priceQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 27B $0.925 · Muse Spark 1.2 $2.00 · GLM-5.3 $2.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextMuse Spark 1.2Muse Spark 1.2 1,048,576 · GLM-5.3 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 27B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsMuse Spark 1.2Muse Spark 1.2: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen3.8 27B: Text, Images, Video · GLM-5.3: Text
  • Self-hostingQwen3.8 27B and GLM-5.3Publishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightMuse Spark 1.2Qwen3.8 27BGLM-5.3
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%847785
Price25%365134
Inputs & features15%1008045
Context window10%613760
Overall100%72/10067/10064/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 27B vs GLM-5.3 specifications side by side
SpecificationMuse Spark 1.2MetaQwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen)GLM-5.3Z.ai (Zhipu)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)155.0149.4155.8 (best)
ECI rank#30 of 148#53 of 148#24 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions——90.9%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics——68.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics——91.1%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions60.3% (best)—41.0%
Price per million tokens
Input$1.25$0.40 (best)$1.40
Output$4.25$2.50 (best)$4.40
Cached input$0.15 (best)—$0.26
Blended (3:1)$2.00$0.925 (best)$2.15
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Meta APIMedian of 39 providersOfficial Z.AI API
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)262,144 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens (best)32,768 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsYesNoNo
AudioYesNoNo
VideoYesYesNo
ReasoningYesminimal · low · medium · high · xhighYesYeslow · high · max
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenOpen
API model IDmuse-spark-1.2—glm-5.3
API providers154162 (best)
ReleasedAug 5, 2026Aug 14, 2026Aug 14, 2026
Knowledge cutoff———
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Muse Spark 1.2$21.00
  • Qwen3.8 27B$9.00
  • GLM-5.3$22.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Muse Spark 1.2, Qwen3.8 27B or GLM-5.3?

Muse Spark 1.2 is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against Qwen3.8 27B (67) and GLM-5.3 (64). It leads on inputs & features. Qwen3.8 27B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Muse Spark 1.2, Qwen3.8 27B or GLM-5.3?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.40 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (median across 39 API providers). Muse Spark 1.2 costs $1.25 input / $4.25 output per million tokens (official Meta API price); GLM-5.3 costs $1.40 input / $4.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.925 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 27B versus $2.00 for Muse Spark 1.2 (2.2× as much) and $2.15 for GLM-5.3 (2.3× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

GLM-5.3 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-5.3 155.8 (#24 of 148), Muse Spark 1.2 155.0 (#30 of 148) and Qwen3.8 27B 149.4 (#53 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (153.7–158.3 vs 152.8–157.5), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Muse Spark 1.2, Qwen3.8 27B and GLM-5.3 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GLM-5.3 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Muse Spark 1.2 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for GLM-5.3 and 262,144 for Qwen3.8 27B. Maximum output per response: Muse Spark 1.2 up to 131,072, Qwen3.8 27B up to 32,768, GLM-5.3 up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Muse Spark 1.2 accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Qwen3.8 27B accepts text, images and video; GLM-5.3 accepts text. Muse Spark 1.2 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3.8 27B and GLM-5.3 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Muse Spark 1.2 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.8 27B is the newest, released Aug 14, 2026. GLM-5.3 came out Aug 14, 2026; Muse Spark 1.2 came out Aug 5, 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons