Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Apodex 1.1

Apodex

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Apodex 1.1 vs Muse Spark 1.1

Updated August 24, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Meta logo
Model B
Muse Spark 1.1

Meta

76.9/100

Supported · Public rank #7

90% interval 72.7–81.0

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

2 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete context comparison is not sourced.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
2
Apodex 1.1 only
8
Muse Spark 1.1 only
19
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Apodex 1.1
56.1
Muse Spark 1.1
62.1
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Agentic

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
80.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
77.7
Muse Spark 1.1
61.5
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
88.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Apodex 1.1
API rate not published
Fit state unavailable
Muse Spark 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Apodex 1.1
API rate not published
Fit state unavailable
Muse Spark 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Apodex 1.1
API rate not published
Fit state unavailable
Cached-input rate unavailable
Muse Spark 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Apodex 1.1

N/A

Muse Spark 1.1

1M

API model ID

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Apodex 1.1

No comparable hosted API rate

Apodex pricing

Muse Spark 1.1

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Provider availability

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Apodex 1.1

Reasoning

Muse Spark 1.1

Reasoning

Weight access

Apodex 1.1

Proprietary

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

License

Apodex 1.1

Proprietary

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

Release date

Apodex 1.1

2026-08-24

Muse Spark 1.1

2026-07-09

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
A complete documented context comparison is not available.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence29 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Apodex 1.170.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Apodex 1.156.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-Agents

    Apodex 1.138.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Apodex 1.192.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.184.9%
    Source

    Apodex 1.1 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.180%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.188.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.175.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.180.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.169%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.159.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.157.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.153.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.114.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.154.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Cybench

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.192.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.10.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Apodex 1.170.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Apodex 1.177.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.180.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.161.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.154.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Apodex 1.156.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.162.1%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • FrontierScience Research

    Apodex 1.163.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Apodex 1.135.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.152.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.159.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • IMO 2026

    Apodex 1.131/42
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.188.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Apodex 1.1—
    Muse Spark 1.176.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or Muse Spark 1.1?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Apodex 1.1 or Muse Spark 1.1?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Apodex 1.1 or Muse Spark 1.1?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Apodex 1.1 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Apodex 1.1 or Muse Spark 1.1?

A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 24, 2026

Watch Apodex 1.1 vs Muse Spark 1.1

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.