ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Qwen3.8 27B vs Muse Spark 1.1

Muse Spark 1.1 comes out ahead, 69 to 66 on our weighted score, though Qwen3.8 27B is 2.1× cheaper per token.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.8 27B

    Released Aug 14, 2026

    66/100
    • ECI151.8
    • Price$0.40 / $2.55
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.8 27B
  2. Our pick

    Meta

    Muse Spark 1.1

    Released Jul 9, 2026

    69/100
    • ECI154.2
    • Price$1.25 / $4.25
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Muse Spark 1.1

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Muse Spark 1.1 is our pick

Muse Spark 1.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Qwen3.8 27B (66). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.8 27B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityMuse Spark 1.1Capabilities Index (ECI): Muse Spark 1.1 154.2 · Qwen3.8 27B 151.8
  • Lowest priceQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 27B $0.938 · Muse Spark 1.1 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextMuse Spark 1.1Muse Spark 1.1 1,048,576 · Qwen3.8 27B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsMuse Spark 1.1Qwen3.8 27B: Text, Images, Video · Muse Spark 1.1: Text, Images, PDFs, Video
  • Self-hostingQwen3.8 27BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.8 27BMuse Spark 1.1
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7982
Price25%4934
Inputs & features15%7090
Context window10%3761
Overall100%66/10069/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.8 27B vs Muse Spark 1.1 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen)Muse Spark 1.1Meta
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)151.8154.2 (best)
ECI rank#54 of 165#46 of 165 (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—57.8%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.40 (best)$1.25
Output$2.55 (best)$4.25
Cached input—$0.15
Blended (3:1)$0.938 (best)$2.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 49 providersOfficial Meta API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output32,768 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYesYesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model ID—muse-spark-1.1
API providers53 (best)15
ReleasedAug 14, 2026Jul 9, 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.

  • Qwen3.8 27B$9.10
  • Muse Spark 1.1$21.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.8 27B or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Qwen3.8 27B (66). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.8 27B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or Muse Spark 1.1?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.40 input / $2.55 output per million tokens (median across 49 API providers). Muse Spark 1.1 costs $1.25 input / $4.25 output per million tokens (official Meta API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.938 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 27B versus $2.00 for Muse Spark 1.1 (2.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Muse Spark 1.1 154.2 (#46 of 165) and Qwen3.8 27B 151.8 (#54 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (151.3–156.4 vs 149.9–153.6), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 27B and Muse Spark 1.1 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Muse Spark 1.1 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Muse Spark 1.1 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.8 27B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 27B up to 32,768, Muse Spark 1.1 up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.8 27B accepts text, images and video; Muse Spark 1.1 accepts text, images, PDFs and video. Muse Spark 1.1 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3.8 27B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Muse Spark 1.1 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.8 27B is the newest, released Aug 14, 2026. Muse Spark 1.1 came out Jul 9, 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 Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons