Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking vs Muse Spark

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.44/100
Margin
13.6pts
winning →
71.04/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking #69 (Estimated); Muse Spark #13 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Muse Spark share 13 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking; 26 to Muse Spark.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
13
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking only
3
Muse Spark only
26
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Muse Spark is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Muse Spark has the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Muse Spark
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingΔMuse Spark
AgenticClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark59.0
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark67.8
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark42.5
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark50.4
MathClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark32.9
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark82.5

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingMuse SparkComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableMuse SparkNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableMuse SparkNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableMuse SparkNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5 Thinking200KMuse Spark262KMuse Spark lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingMuse SparkResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 89.5%91.5%Muse Spark leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —59%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —74.8%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —43.5%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —63.8%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —28.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —32.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1144Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingMuse SparkResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 20.63%19.67%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-SciCodeSource 49.5%51.5%Muse Spark leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —77.4%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —52.4%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource —80.0%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —58.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingMuse SparkResult
AA-LCRSource 74.0%69.7%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
CritPtSource 4.6%11.3%Muse Spark leads
ARC-AGI-2Source —42.5%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingMuse SparkResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.8%43.1%Muse Spark leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.6%88.4%Muse Spark leads
AA-HLESource 28.4%39.9%Muse Spark leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 13.3%4.1%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.7%44.6%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 59.8%73.2%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 89.5%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —89.5%Not comparable
HLESource —50.4%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —42.8%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —42.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —52.6%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingMuse SparkResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —39.000%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —14.600%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingMuse SparkResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource 91.3%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingMuse SparkResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.0%80.5%Muse Spark leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1277—Not comparable
CharXivSource —86.4%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —80.4%Not comparable
ERQASource —64.7%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —71.3%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —84.1%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource —33.0%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —78.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingMuse SparkResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.0%75.9%Muse Spark leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Muse Spark on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.