Ling 3.0 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3: Specs & Benchmark Comparison

Ling 3.0 Flash is developed by InclusionAI, while Muse Spark 1.3 comes from Meta. Ling 3.0 Flash was released in August 2026, and Muse Spark 1.3 followed a month later in September 2026. Ling 3.0 Flash has a published size of about 124 billion parameters; Meta has not disclosed the parameter count of Muse Spark 1.3.

The two models share 2 published benchmarks. Muse Spark 1.3 leads on 2 of them. The widest gaps are on Terminal-Bench 2.1, where Muse Spark 1.3 scores 88.8% against 57.0%; GDPval-AA, where Muse Spark 1.3 scores 58.5% against 36.9%. Averaged across everything we track, Ling 3.0 Flash sits at 68.5% and Muse Spark 1.3 at 73.4%.

Ling 3.0 Flash is the cheaper API at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.18 per million output tokens, roughly 21 times cheaper than Muse Spark 1.3 at $1.25 and $4.25. Muse Spark 1.3 takes the larger context window at 1M tokens, compared with 131K for Ling 3.0 Flash. Ling 3.0 Flash accepts text as input, while Muse Spark 1.3 accepts text, images, audio, and video. On tooling, only Muse Spark 1.3 supports function calling and only Muse Spark 1.3 offers structured output.

CharacteristicLing 3.0 FlashMuse Spark 1.3
CompanyInclusionAIMeta
Release DateAugust 4, 2026September 2, 2026
Parameters124B—
MultimodalNoYes
Context (input)131K1.0M
Context (output)131K944K
Input Price / 1M$0.06$1.25
Output Price / 1M$0.18$4.25
Average Score68.5%73.4%
Benchmarks
Terminal-Bench 2.157.0%88.8%
GDPval-AA36.9%58.5%

Visual Benchmark Comparison

Ling 3.0 Flash
Muse Spark 1.3
Terminal-Bench 2.10.6 vs 0.9
0.6
0.9
GDPval-AA0.4 vs 0.6
0.4
0.6

Verdict

Muse Spark 1.3 leads in 2 out of 4 comparison categories.

Overall Performance

Both models show comparable average scores: Ling 3.0 Flash — 0.7, Muse Spark 1.3 — 0.7.

API Cost

Ling 3.0 Flash is 22.9x cheaper: input $0.06/1M vs $1.25/1M tokens.

Context Window

Muse Spark 1.3 supports a larger context: 1M vs 131K tokens.

Recency

Muse Spark 1.3 is newer: released 9/2/2026 vs 8/4/2026.

More About These Models

Related Comparisons

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better for coding — Ling 3.0 Flash or Muse Spark 1.3?
Direct comparison on the SWE-Bench benchmark is not available. We recommend reviewing other metrics on the comparison page.
Which model is cheaper — Ling 3.0 Flash or Muse Spark 1.3?
Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper for input: $0.06 per 1M tokens vs $1.25.
Which has a larger context window — Ling 3.0 Flash or Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 supports a larger context: 1,048,576 tokens vs 131,072.

The Ling 3.0 Flash and Muse Spark 1.3 comparison is updated for 2026. Data includes benchmark results, API pricing, context window size and other specifications. For more detailed information, visit the Ling 3.0 Flash or Muse Spark 1.3 page. See also the complete list of AI model comparisons.