Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-08-31-011508720696 · outcome_score · leader | 0.96100% of row best · score · Gemini 3.7 Flash (High); 95% CI [0.05817495, 1.85682345]; sessions 24413; observations 1756405; rank 30 | -0.7398% of row best · score · Muse Spark 1.1; 95% CI [-1.36365010, -0.10505611]; sessions 87115; observations 3236537; rank 34 |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · statistical tie | 1,491.10100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.7-flash-high; 95% CI [1482.94370265, 1499.25525622]; votes 5685; rank 6 | 1,479.0399% of row best · rating · muse-spark-1.1; 95% CI [1473.99485495, 1484.06002682]; votes 23768; rank 14 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 83.15100% of row best · percent · gemini-3.7-flash-high · 22,610 output tokens / case | 78.5794% of row best · percent · muse-spark-1.1-xhigh · 13,652 output tokens / case |
| ToneBench2026-08-28-10-task-cd9819ab6e4d · overall_score · leader | 77.9597% of row best · points · Gemini 3.7 Flash (high thinking) · 9,139 output tokens / case | 80.76100% of row best · points · Muse Spark 1.1 (thinking) · 6,037 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead | 1 benchmark win |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google Deepmind | Meta |
| Family | Gemini 3 | Muse Spark |
| Model | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Muse Spark 1.1 |
| Version | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Muse Spark 1.1 |
| Lifecycle | active | preview |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-07-09 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Unknown | Text, Image, Video, Audio |
| Output modalities | Unknown | Text |
| Context window | 1,048,576 | 1,000,000 |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) | Unknown |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, computer-use, generation, reasoning, research, structured_outputs, tools |
10 comparable fields · 7 material differences · Interactive comparison only; indexing gate not met
Gemini 3.7 Flash Capabilities
Muse Spark 1.1 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Muse Spark 1.1Meta | vs | Muse Spark 1.2Meta | family variantsaudio, image, text, video |
Muse Spark 1.1Meta | vs | InklingThinking Machines Lab | cross-developer peersaudio, image, text, video |
Seed 2.0 LiteByteDance Seed | vs | Muse Spark 1.1Meta | cross-developer peersaudio, image, text, video |
Gemma 4 E2BGoogle Deepmind | vs | Muse Spark 1.1Meta | cross-developer peersaudio, image, text, video |
Gemma 4 E4BGoogle Deepmind | vs | Muse Spark 1.1Meta | cross-developer peersaudio, image, text, video |
Muse Spark 1.1Meta | vs |  Phi-4-multimodal-instructMicrosoft | cross-developer peersaudio, image, text |
Muse Spark 1.1Meta | vs | Muse Glimmer 30BMeta | cross-developer peersimage, text |
| vs | Muse Spark 1.1Meta | cross-developer peersaudio, text | |
| vs | Muse Spark 1.1Meta | cross-developer peersaudio, text | |
Muse Spark 1.1Meta | vs | VibeVoice-ASR-Streaming-7BMicrosoft | cross-developer peersaudio, text |
Muse Spark 1.1Meta | vs | MAI-Transcribe 2Microsoft | cross-developer peersaudio, text |
Lyria 3.5Google Deepmind | vs | Muse Spark 1.1Meta | cross-developer peersaudio |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1 FAQs
Is Gemini 3.7 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemini 3.7 Flash and Muse Spark 1.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?+
Only Gemini 3.7 Flash has a directly sourced input price: $0.75 per million tokens. Only Gemini 3.7 Flash has a directly sourced output price: $3.75 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?+
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Gemini 3.7 Flash supports 1,048,576 and Muse Spark 1.1 supports 1,000,000.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?+
Gemini 3.7 Flash leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 4 protocol-matched benchmarks from 3 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can Gemini 3.7 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Gemini 3.7 Flash is not marked open weight; Muse Spark 1.1 is not marked open weight.
Can Gemini 3.7 Flash and Muse Spark 1.1 understand images?+
Gemini 3.7 Flash is not documented with image input; Muse Spark 1.1 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Gemini 3.7 Flash is 65,536 and Muse Spark 1.1 is —.
Do Gemini 3.7 Flash and Muse Spark 1.1 support reasoning and tool use?+
Gemini 3.7 Flash: reasoning and tool calling. Muse Spark 1.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?+
Gemini 3.7 Flash has 2 sourced provider routes; Muse Spark 1.1 has 0, so Gemini 3.7 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.