Agentic
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.5
- 62.6
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 80.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.1
Updated August 22, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 76.74 versus 63.44, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
9 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
Muse Spark 1.1
Muse Spark 1.1 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Muse Spark 1.1
Muse Spark 1.1 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
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
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
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
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.
36 Claude Opus 4.5 only
9 Shared
12 Muse Spark 1.1 only
- Shared results
- 9
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 36
- Muse Spark 1.1 only
- 12
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
3 categories use 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.
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.5
- 71.7
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 61.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.5
- 58.1
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 62.1
- Weighted basis
- 4 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.5
- 69.9
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 88.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.5
- 64.4
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.5
- 57.5
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 4 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.5
- 85.7
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.5
- 69.5
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.1 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 62.6 | 80.4 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Muse Spark 1.1 leads |
| Coding | 71.7 | 61.5 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 58.1 | 62.1 | Directional only4 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 69.9 | 88.4 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 64.4 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 57.5 | Not measured | Not comparable4 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | 85.7 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 69.5 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | 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.
HLE
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.5: 30.8%Muse Spark 1.1: 62.1%Normalized gap 31.3Claude Opus 4.5 source Muse Spark 1.1 sourceTerminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.5: 59.3%Muse Spark 1.1: 80%Normalized gap 20.7Claude Opus 4.5 source Muse Spark 1.1 sourceCharXiv
Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.5: 68.5%Muse Spark 1.1: 88.4%Normalized gap 19.9Claude Opus 4.5 source Muse Spark 1.1 sourceOSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.5: 66.3%Muse Spark 1.1: 80.8%Normalized gap 14.5Claude Opus 4.5 source Muse Spark 1.1 sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Opus 4.5: 57.1%Muse Spark 1.1: 61.5%Normalized gap 4.4Claude Opus 4.5 source Muse Spark 1.1 source
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 Opus 4.5
- $0.0175
- 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 Opus 4.5
- $0.325
- 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 Opus 4.5
- $1.35
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Muse Spark 1.1
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input 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.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.5Muse Spark 1.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.5
200K
Muse Spark 1.1
1M
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.5
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.
Claude Opus 4.5
Not published
Muse Spark 1.1
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
Muse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
Muse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
Muse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Muse Spark 1.1
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.5
Proprietary
Muse Spark 1.1
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 4.5
Proprietary
Muse Spark 1.1
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 4.5
2025-11-01
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
- Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 76.74 versus 63.44, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Muse Spark 1.1 has the larger documented window (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 evidence57 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.559.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.180%SourceMuse Spark 1.1 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.566.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.180.8%SourceMuse Spark 1.1 leads this result
OSWorld
Claude Opus 4.566.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.559.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude Opus 4.552.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Opus 4.570.2%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Opus 4.523.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Opus 4.526.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 4.543.5%SourceMuse Spark 1.175.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.1 leads this result
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.542.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.188.1%SourceMuse Spark 1.1 leads this result
MCP-Tasks
Claude Opus 4.571.8%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Opus 4.576.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.550.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.159.0%SourceMuse Spark 1.1 leads this result
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.564.23%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.532.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.154.7%SourceMuse Spark 1.1 leads this result
WebArena-Verified
Claude Opus 4.5—Muse Spark 1.169%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 4.5—Muse Spark 1.184.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Claude Opus 4.5—Muse Spark 1.157.2%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
Claude Opus 4.5—Muse Spark 1.153.3%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.5—Muse Spark 1.114.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Cybench
Claude Opus 4.5—Muse Spark 1.192.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ExploitGym
Claude Opus 4.5—Muse Spark 1.10.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.580.9%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Opus 4.584.8%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.557.1%SourceMuse Spark 1.161.5%SourceMuse Spark 1.1 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.577.5%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 4.543.2%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.5—Muse Spark 1.180.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.587%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 4.570.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.589.5%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Opus 4.596.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
C-Eval
Claude Opus 4.592.2%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.530.8%SourceMuse Spark 1.162.1%SourceMuse Spark 1.1 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.5—Muse Spark 1.152.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Claude Opus 4.5—Muse Spark 1.159.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Claude Opus 4.595.1%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Opus 4.592.9%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Opus 4.593.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Opus 4.585.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude Opus 4.584.0%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Opus 4.520.690%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 4.54.167%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Multilingual
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.570.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Opus 4.574.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.568.5%SourceMuse Spark 1.188.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.1 leads this result
VideoMMMU
Claude Opus 4.584.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.545.7%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
V*
Claude Opus 4.567.0%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
BabyVision
Claude Opus 4.5—Muse Spark 1.176.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 76.74 versus 63.44, 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 Opus 4.5 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 Opus 4.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 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 Opus 4.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 22, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.1
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.