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
Claude Fable 5

Anthropic

82.7/100

Supported · Public rank #3

90% interval 80.2–85.2

Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark 1.1

Updated August 22, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Muse Spark 1.1

Meta

76.7/100

Supported · Public rank #7

90% interval 72.6–80.9

Decision reading

Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score estimate, 82.7 versus 76.74, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

4 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.

  • Agentic work

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

    Claude Fable 5

    Claude Fable 5 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.

    Confidence: limited

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

  • 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
4
Claude Fable 5 only
8
Muse Spark 1.1 only
17
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

Agentic

Like-for-like
Claude Fable 5
84.6
Muse Spark 1.1
80.4
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Claude Fable 5 leads

Coding

Directional only
Claude Fable 5
89.2
Muse Spark 1.1
61.5
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
62.1
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
57.9
Muse Spark 1.1
88.4
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
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

Claude Fable 5
$0.035
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5
$0.65
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Claude Fable 5
$0.9
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

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.

Claude Fable 5

1M

Anthropic model overview

Muse Spark 1.1

1M

Cached-input rate

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

Claude Fable 5

$1 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Muse Spark 1.1

No comparable hosted API rate

Reasoning profile

Claude Fable 5

Reasoning

Muse Spark 1.1

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Fable 5

Proprietary

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

License

Claude Fable 5

Proprietary

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Fable 5

2026-06-09

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
Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score estimate, 82.7 versus 76.74, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.

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 3.0

    Claude Fable 534.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Fable 584.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.180%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Fable 585%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.180.8%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.188.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.175.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.169%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.184.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.159.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.157.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.153.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.114.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.154.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Cybench

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.192.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.10.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Fable 595%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Fable 580%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.161.5%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Fable 553.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Fable 584.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.180.0%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • cursorBench31

    Claude Fable 570.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Fable 570.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Claude Fable 587.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.154.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.162.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.152.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.159.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Blueprint-Bench 2

    Claude Fable 538.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Fable 557.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.188.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Claude Fable 5—
    Muse Spark 1.176.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score estimate, 82.7 versus 76.74, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Claude Fable 5 leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.

Which costs less, Claude Fable 5 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, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 22, 2026

Watch Claude Fable 5 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.