Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct vs Muse Spark 1.2
At a Glance
| Compare |  Muse Spark 1.2Meta | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.10Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | Not reported |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.30Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | Not reported |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 10,000K | Not reported |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,279.2986% of row best · rating · llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct; 95% CI [1274.57681953, 1284.00026285]; votes 29740; rank 259 | 1,489.44100% of row best · rating · muse-spark-1.2 (xHigh); 95% CI [1478.95697715, 1499.92080617]; votes 3227; rank 11 |
| LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,117.8086% of row best · rating · llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct; 95% CI [1108.35603674, 1127.24229078]; votes 6466; rank 114 | 1,303.88100% of row best · rating · muse-spark-1.2 (xHigh); 95% CI [1289.13624882, 1318.62565115]; votes 1841; rank 14 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 2 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Meta | Meta |
| Family | Llama 4 Scout 17b 16e Instruct | Muse Spark |
| Model | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct | Muse Spark 1.2 |
| Version | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct | Muse Spark 1.2 |
| Lifecycle | active | preview |
| Released | 2025-04-05 | 2026-08-05 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video, Audio |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 10,000K | Unknown |
| Total parameters | 108.6B | Unknown |
| Active parameters | 17B | Unknown |
| License | other | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) | Unknown |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, tools | chat, computer-use, generation, reasoning, research, structured_outputs, tools |
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct Capabilities
Muse Spark 1.2 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct vs Muse Spark 1.2 FAQs
Is Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or Muse Spark 1.2 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct and Muse Spark 1.2, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or Muse Spark 1.2?+
Only Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has a directly sourced input price: $0.10 per million tokens. Only Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has a directly sourced output price: $0.30 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or Muse Spark 1.2?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is 10,000K and Muse Spark 1.2 is —.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or Muse Spark 1.2?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.
Can Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or Muse Spark 1.2 be self-hosted?+
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is open weight; Muse Spark 1.2 is not marked open weight.
Can Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct and Muse Spark 1.2 understand images?+
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is documented with image input; Muse Spark 1.2 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or Muse Spark 1.2?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is — and Muse Spark 1.2 is —.
Do Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct and Muse Spark 1.2 support reasoning and tool use?+
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct: tool calling and image input. Muse Spark 1.2: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or Muse Spark 1.2?+
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has 4 sourced provider routes; Muse Spark 1.2 has 0, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or Muse Spark 1.2?+
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.