Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor vs Underdog Saluki 27B

Overall
66
vs
Overall
33

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor is clearly better. It wins 61 of the 67 test cases where they differ.

Learn to build evals like this in the AI Engineering Academy

Task by task

A score turns orange only when that model wins clearly more of the task's test cases. Under each score, the average time per test case on the machine it ran on. Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor spends 1.4× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
661m 42s
8.7K, 91% thinking6.9K, 84% thinking
335m 15s
Agents
573m 16s
14.7K, 88% thinking11.8K, 97% thinking
409m 2s
Structured Extraction
9037.9s
4.2K, 91% thinking4.4K, 92% thinking
433m 17s
Coding
482m 1s
10.8K, 95% thinking9.2K, 49% thinking
166m 54s
Grounded Answers
811m 1s
6.1K, 91% thinking4.5K, 92% thinking
433m 22s
Instruction Following
841m 18s
8.7K, 91% thinking8K, 94% thinking
466m 5s
Business Logic
761m 7s
6K, 95% thinking5.2K, 81% thinking
333m 55s
Security & permissions
761m 59s
8.2K, 87% thinking4.9K, 91% thinking
433m 47s
Diagnosis & investigation
173m 34s
17.2K, 90% thinking8.7K, 94% thinking
06m 39s

What you'd run

The build behind each score. Orange marks the faster, smaller, cheaper or longer-context side.

SpecAB
Speed
107 tok/s
23 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Memory at 32K
—
10.2 GB
Context
1M (better)
256K
Cost per run
$0.41
Not measured
Cost per case
$0.0027
Not measured
Time per case
1m 42s (better)
5m 15s
Quantization
—
IQ2_XS
Harness
openrouter
llama.cpp

The race

1 lead change

Each model's running score as the test cases go by. The dashed line is a perfect run.

Muse Spark 1.3 ContributorUnderdog Saluki 27B
025507510050100150Perfect run6633

Every test case

153 test cases

Each square is one test case, colored by the model that scored higher.

61 won by Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor6 won by Underdog Saluki 27B86 tied