Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.3/100
Margin
22.1pts
winning →
77.44/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated); Muse Spark 1.1 #6 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Muse Spark 1.1 share 21 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 26 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 18 to Muse Spark 1.1.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
21
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
26
Muse Spark 1.1 only
18
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Muse Spark 1.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Muse Spark 1.1 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 77.44 to 55.3. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Muse Spark 1.1's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 88.4 against 82.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 80.2% to 88.4%.

Muse Spark 1.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Gemini 3.1 Pro and Muse Spark 1.1
CategoryGemini 3.1 ProΔMuse Spark 1.1
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro82.6Margin→ 5.8Muse Spark 1.188.4
AgenticGemini 3.1 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark 1.180.4
CodingGemini 3.1 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark 1.161.5
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro77.1MarginNo overlapMuse Spark 1.1Not measured
KnowledgeGemini 3.1 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark 1.162.1
MathGemini 3.1 Pro31.8MarginNo overlapMuse Spark 1.1Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Gemini 3.1 ProB · Muse Spark 1.1

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 80.2%B 88.4%
    Winner: Muse Spark 1.1Δ 8.2
    CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%; Muse Spark 1.1 scored 88.4%. Muse Spark 1.1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemini 3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 outputMuse Spark 1.1Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/sMuse Spark 1.1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 3.1 Pro29.71 sMuse Spark 1.1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 3.1 Pro1MMuse Spark 1.11MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.1Result
Claw-EvalSource 57.8%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 69.7%84.9%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.6%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 21.4%37.5%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 32.0%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 23.3%43.7%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
GDPval-AASource 9651374Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Gert LabsSource 56.87%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 13.3%—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 37.5%42.8%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 42.2%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 58.9%93.1%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA ITBenchSource 30.3%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 16.5%25.2%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
terminalBenchHardSource 53.8%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 73.8%77.9%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —80%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —88.1%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —75.6%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —80.8%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —59.0%Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source —57.2%Not comparable
deepSweSource —53.3%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —14.2%Not comparable
JobBenchSource —54.7%Not comparable
CybenchSource —92.9%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource —0.8%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —863Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.1Result
LiveCodeBench ProSource 82.9%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 78.9%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 32.03%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 68.8%71.3%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 58.9%58.2%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —80.0%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —61.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.1Result
ARC-AGI-2Source 77.1%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 72.7%63.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CritPtSource 17.7%15.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
MRCR 1MSource —54.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.1Result
GPQA-DSource 94.3%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 45.4%52.2%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
HealthBench HardSource 20.6%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 71.5%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 46.5%50.6%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 94.1%89.8%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 44.7%45.1%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 32.9%18.0%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 55.3%40.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 49.9%38.1%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
HLESource —62.1%Not comparable
HealthBench ProfessionalSource —59.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.1Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 36.900%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 16.700%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.1Result
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource 93.2%—Not comparable
MultimodalMuse Spark 1.1 wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.1Result
MMMU-ProSource 83.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 80.2%88.4%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
ERQASource 69.4%—Not comparable
SimpleVQASource 72.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource 29.0%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 81.3%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 82.4%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12811299Muse Spark 1.1 leads
BabyVisionSource —76.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 77.1%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 77.44 to 55.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 80.2% and 88.4%.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88.4 versus 82.6. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.