Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B for fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total) or near-31b-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost. Pick Muse Spark 1.1 for scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported) or subagent orchestration — trained to run as a main agent or a subagent that escalates when stuck. Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Muse Spark 1.1 if you want a managed API.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Google) and Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Gemma 4 26B A4B is an Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost. Muse Spark 1.1 is meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Price: Gemma 4 26B A4B is about 8.3× cheaper on input ($0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens vs $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
Context window: Muse Spark 1.1 holds 4× more — 1M (~1,573 pages) vs 256K (~393 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: Muse Spark 1.1 is the newer model by about 3 months (released July 9, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Specifications
Spec
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Muse Spark 1.1
Provider
Google (US)
Meta (US)
Released
April 2, 2026
July 9, 2026
Context window
256K (~393 pages)
1M (~1,573 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens
$1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, video, code
text, image, video, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
54.1%
Who wins what
Fast, cheap inference from a sparse MoE (3.8B active of 25.2B total): Gemma 4 26B A4B — At $0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens it undercuts Muse Spark 1.1 ($1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
Near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost: Gemma 4 26B A4B — An Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost — and it runs cheaper at $0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens.
Strong reasoning and coding (88.3% AIME 2026 no-tools, 77.1% LiveCodeBench v6): Gemma 4 26B A4B — Muse Spark 1.1 is comparatively weak here — not the coding leader its launch framing implied — Meta's own report concedes it trails Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on every coding benchmark
Scaled tool use — 88.1 on MCP Atlas, ahead of Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 (vendor-reported): Muse Spark 1.1 — Meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Subagent orchestration — trained to run as a main agent or a subagent that escalates when stuck: Muse Spark 1.1 — Meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding — and it is the newer of the two.
Professional agentic work — 54.7 on JobBench, a wide margin over rivals (vendor-reported): Muse Spark 1.1 — Gemma 4 26B A4B is comparatively weak here — 256K context trails 1M-token frontier rivals, and this variant has no audio input (audio is E2B/E4B/12B only)
Lowest cost at scale: Gemma 4 26B A4B — At $0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input: Muse Spark 1.1 — Its 1M window is about 4× larger than Gemma 4 26B A4B's 256K, fitting roughly 1,573 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Gemma 4 26B A4B — At $0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens it undercuts Muse Spark 1.1, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Muse Spark 1.1 — Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: Gemma 4 26B A4B — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Muse Spark 1.1 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total): Gemma 4 26B A4B — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported): Muse Spark 1.1 — That is its strongest area.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: where it fits
An Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost. Released April 2, 2026 by Google, it is built for fast, cheap inference from a sparse MoE (3.8B active of 25.2B total), near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost, strong reasoning and coding (88.3% AIME 2026 no-tools, 77.1% LiveCodeBench v6), and multimodal input (text/image, plus video processed as frames up to 60s) with native function calling.
Its trade-offs are real: all 25.2B parameters must be loaded into memory even though only 3.8B are active per token, and 256K context trails 1M-token frontier rivals, and this variant has no audio input (audio is E2B/E4B/12B only). At $0.15 in / $0.6 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Muse Spark 1.1: where it fits
Meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding. Released July 9, 2026 by Meta, it is built for scaled tool use — 88.1 on MCP Atlas, ahead of Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 (vendor-reported), subagent orchestration — trained to run as a main agent or a subagent that escalates when stuck, professional agentic work — 54.7 on JobBench, a wide margin over rivals (vendor-reported), and managing its own context: it compacts the 1M window mid-run instead of relying on external windowing.
Its trade-offs: not the coding leader its launch framing implied — Meta's own report concedes it trails Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on every coding benchmark, the 1M window oversells its recall: 54.1 on MRCR v2 at 1M against GPT-5.5's 74.0, closed weights end the free, self-hostable Llama path — this is the first model Meta has charged for, and uS-only public preview behind a waitlist, and every benchmark is vendor-reported with no third-party replication. At $1.25 in / $4.25 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Gemma 4 26B A4B gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Muse Spark 1.1 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B or Muse Spark 1.1 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Gemma 4 26B A4B leans toward fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total) while Muse Spark 1.1 leans toward scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Muse Spark 1.1?
Gemma 4 26B A4B is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Muse Spark 1.1 is API-metered at $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.1 — 1M vs 256K, about 4× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Gemma 4 26B A4B and Muse Spark 1.1 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Gemma 4 26B A4B, Muse Spark 1.1 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 — released July 9, 2026, about 3 months after Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Spark 1.1
Google · US | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B for fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total) or near-31b-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost. Pick Muse Spark 1.1 for scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported) or subagent orchestration — trained to run as a main agent or a subagent that escalates when stuck. Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Muse Spark 1.1 if you want a managed API.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Google) and Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Gemma 4 26B A4B is an Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost. Muse Spark 1.1 is meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: Gemma 4 26B A4B is about 8.3× cheaper on input ($0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens vs $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
▸Context window: Muse Spark 1.1 holds 4× more — 1M (~1,573 pages) vs 256K (~393 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: Muse Spark 1.1 is the newer model by about 3 months (released July 9, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Muse Spark 1.1
Provider
Google (US)
Meta (US)
Released
April 2, 2026
July 9, 2026
Context window
256K (~393 pages)
1M (~1,573 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens
$1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, video, code
text, image, video, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
54.1%
Who wins what
Fast, cheap inference from a sparse MoE (3.8B active of 25.2B total)
Gemma 4 26B A4B
At $0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens it undercuts Muse Spark 1.1 ($1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
Near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost
Gemma 4 26B A4B
An Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost — and it runs cheaper at $0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens.
Muse Spark 1.1 is comparatively weak here — not the coding leader its launch framing implied — Meta's own report concedes it trails Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on every coding benchmark
Scaled tool use — 88.1 on MCP Atlas, ahead of Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 (vendor-reported)
Muse Spark 1.1
Meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Subagent orchestration — trained to run as a main agent or a subagent that escalates when stuck
Muse Spark 1.1
Meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding — and it is the newer of the two.
Professional agentic work — 54.7 on JobBench, a wide margin over rivals (vendor-reported)
Muse Spark 1.1
Gemma 4 26B A4B is comparatively weak here — 256K context trails 1M-token frontier rivals, and this variant has no audio input (audio is E2B/E4B/12B only)
Lowest cost at scale
Gemma 4 26B A4B
At $0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input
Muse Spark 1.1
Its 1M window is about 4× larger than Gemma 4 26B A4B's 256K, fitting roughly 1,573 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Gemma 4 26B A4B
At $0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens it undercuts Muse Spark 1.1, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Muse Spark 1.1
Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ Gemma 4 26B A4B
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Muse Spark 1.1 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total)
→ Gemma 4 26B A4B
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported)
→ Muse Spark 1.1
That is its strongest area.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: where it fits
An Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost. Released April 2, 2026 by Google, it is built for fast, cheap inference from a sparse MoE (3.8B active of 25.2B total), near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost, strong reasoning and coding (88.3% AIME 2026 no-tools, 77.1% LiveCodeBench v6), and multimodal input (text/image, plus video processed as frames up to 60s) with native function calling.
Its trade-offs are real: all 25.2B parameters must be loaded into memory even though only 3.8B are active per token, and 256K context trails 1M-token frontier rivals, and this variant has no audio input (audio is E2B/E4B/12B only). At $0.15 in / $0.6 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Muse Spark 1.1: where it fits
Meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding. Released July 9, 2026 by Meta, it is built for scaled tool use — 88.1 on MCP Atlas, ahead of Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 (vendor-reported), subagent orchestration — trained to run as a main agent or a subagent that escalates when stuck, professional agentic work — 54.7 on JobBench, a wide margin over rivals (vendor-reported), and managing its own context: it compacts the 1M window mid-run instead of relying on external windowing.
Its trade-offs: not the coding leader its launch framing implied — Meta's own report concedes it trails Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on every coding benchmark, the 1M window oversells its recall: 54.1 on MRCR v2 at 1M against GPT-5.5's 74.0, closed weights end the free, self-hostable Llama path — this is the first model Meta has charged for, and uS-only public preview behind a waitlist, and every benchmark is vendor-reported with no third-party replication. At $1.25 in / $4.25 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Gemma 4 26B A4B gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Muse Spark 1.1 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Gemma 4 26B A4B and Muse Spark 1.1 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B or Muse Spark 1.1 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Gemma 4 26B A4B leans toward fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total) while Muse Spark 1.1 leans toward scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Muse Spark 1.1?
Gemma 4 26B A4B is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Muse Spark 1.1 is API-metered at $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.1 — 1M vs 256K, about 4× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Gemma 4 26B A4B and Muse Spark 1.1 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Gemma 4 26B A4B, Muse Spark 1.1 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 — released July 9, 2026, about 3 months after Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.