Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Muse Spark 1.1
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,311.9089% of row best · rating · olmo-3.1-32b-instruct; 95% CI [1305.73447366, 1318.07100374]; votes 11463; rank 223 | 1,479.03100% of row best · rating · muse-spark-1.1; 95% CI [1473.99485495, 1484.06002682]; votes 23768; rank 14 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark wins | 1 benchmark winOverall lead |
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 | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Ai2 | Meta |
| Family | Olmo 3 1 32b Instruct | Muse Spark |
| Model | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Muse Spark 1.1 |
| Version | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Muse Spark 1.1 |
| Lifecycle | active | preview |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-07-09 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video, Audio |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 66K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 32.2B | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Unknown | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Unknown | Unknown |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, tools | chat, computer-use, generation, reasoning, research, structured_outputs, tools |
11 comparable fields · 10 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct Capabilities
Muse Spark 1.1 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Muse Spark 1.1 FAQs
Is Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Muse Spark 1.1 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct and Muse Spark 1.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Muse Spark 1.1?+
Neither model has a directly sourced input price in this comparison. Neither model has a directly sourced output price in this comparison.
Which has a larger context window, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Muse Spark 1.1?+
Muse Spark 1.1 has the larger sourced context window. Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct supports 66K and Muse Spark 1.1 supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Muse Spark 1.1?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Muse Spark 1.1 be self-hosted?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is open weight; Muse Spark 1.1 is not marked open weight.
Can Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct and Muse Spark 1.1 understand images?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct 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, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Muse Spark 1.1?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is 33K and Muse Spark 1.1 is —.
Do Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct and Muse Spark 1.1 support reasoning and tool use?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct: 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, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Muse Spark 1.1?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct has 0 sourced provider routes; Muse Spark 1.1 has 0, a tie.
Which offers better value, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct 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.