LFM3-1.7B vs Muse Spark 1.1
Liquid AI · US | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick LFM3-1.7B for very small open-weight text model - about 1.73b parameters with a 256k-token context for on-device use or liquid says it can power agentic applications that used to need 9b parameters. 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 LFM3-1.7B if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Muse Spark 1.1 if you want a managed API.
LFM3-1.7B (Liquid AI) and Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. LFM3-1.7B is liquid AI's October 27, 2026 on-device text model - about 1.73B parameters and 256K context, with open weights under a license capped at $10M annual revenue. 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
- ▸Cost model: LFM3-1.7B ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Muse Spark 1.1 is API-metered at $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
- ▸Context window: Muse Spark 1.1 holds 4.1× more — 1M (~1,573 pages) vs 256K tokens (~384 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
- ▸Recency: LFM3-1.7B is the newer model by about 4 months (released October 27, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | LFM3-1.7B | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Liquid AI (US) | Meta (US) |
| Released | October 27, 2026 | July 9, 2026 |
| Context window | 256K tokens (~384 pages) | 1M (~1,573 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | Open weight (self-host / free) | $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens |
| Open weight? | Yes — self-hostable | No — API only |
| Modalities | text | text, image, video, code |
| SWE-Bench Verified | Not published | Not published |
| MRCR v2 @ 1M | Not published | 54.1% |
Who wins what
Very small open-weight text model - about 1.73B parameters with a 256K-token context for on-device use
LFM3-1.7B
Open weights make this possible at all — Muse Spark 1.1 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.
Liquid says it can power agentic applications that used to need 9B parameters
LFM3-1.7B
Liquid AI's October 27, 2026 on-device text model - about 1.73B parameters and 256K context, with open weights under a license capped at $10M annual revenue — and its weights are open while Muse Spark 1.1 is API-only.
Part of a six-model LFM3 family covering text, vision, audio, omni and decision tasks
LFM3-1.7B
Muse Spark 1.1 is comparatively weak here — closed weights end the free, self-hostable Llama path — this is the first model Meta has charged for
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
LFM3-1.7B is comparatively weak here — liquid says it is not recommended for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning because of its size
Professional agentic work — 54.7 on JobBench, a wide margin over rivals (vendor-reported)
Muse Spark 1.1
Muse Spark 1.1 lists professional agentic work — 54.7 on JobBench, a wide margin over rivals (vendor-reported) among its strengths; LFM3-1.7B does not.
Lowest cost at scale
LFM3-1.7B
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Muse Spark 1.1's $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
Muse Spark 1.1
Its 1M window is about 4.1× larger than LFM3-1.7B's 256K tokens, fitting roughly 1,573 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ LFM3-1.7B
At Open weight (self-host / free) 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
→ LFM3-1.7B
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Muse Spark 1.1 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is very small open-weight text model - about 1.73b parameters with a 256k-token context for on-device use
→ LFM3-1.7B
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.
LFM3-1.7B: where it fits
Liquid AI's October 27, 2026 on-device text model - about 1.73B parameters and 256K context, with open weights under a license capped at $10M annual revenue. Released October 27, 2026 by Liquid AI, it is built for very small open-weight text model - about 1.73B parameters with a 256K-token context for on-device use, liquid says it can power agentic applications that used to need 9B parameters, part of a six-model LFM3 family covering text, vision, audio, omni and decision tasks, and supports 16 languages.
Its trade-offs are real: lFM Open License v1.0 covers commercial use only below $10M annual revenue; larger firms need a paid license, liquid says it is not recommended for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning because of its size, text-only; vision and audio need other LFM3 checkpoints, and no published per-token API price found. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
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. LFM3-1.7B 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 LFM3-1.7B 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.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is LFM3-1.7B 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, LFM3-1.7B leans toward very small open-weight text model - about 1.73b parameters with a 256k-token context for on-device use 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, LFM3-1.7B or Muse Spark 1.1?
LFM3-1.7B 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 tokens, about 4.1× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both LFM3-1.7B and Muse Spark 1.1 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you LFM3-1.7B, 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, LFM3-1.7B or Muse Spark 1.1?
LFM3-1.7B — released October 27, 2026, about 4 months after Muse Spark 1.1.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.