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 Opus 4.6

Anthropic

67.8/100

Supported · Public rank #23

90% interval 54.2–81.4

Claude Opus 4.6 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

Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 76.74 versus 67.8, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

8 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

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

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    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: 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.

Shared results
8
Claude Opus 4.6 only
25
Muse Spark 1.1 only
13
Like-for-like categories
0 / 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.

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.6
73.0
Muse Spark 1.1
80.4
Weighted basis
3 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.6
68.1
Muse Spark 1.1
61.5
Weighted basis
3 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.6
69.1
Muse Spark 1.1
62.1
Weighted basis
4 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
36.3
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
Not measured
Muse Spark 1.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
77.3
Muse Spark 1.1
88.4
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
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 Opus 4.6
$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 4.6
$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 4.6
$1.35
Fits 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 4.6 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.

Context window

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

Claude Opus 4.6

1M

Muse Spark 1.1

1M

API model ID

Claude Opus 4.6

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 4.6

Not published

Muse Spark 1.1

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.6

Non-Reasoning

Muse Spark 1.1

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

License

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Opus 4.6

2026-02-01

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 67.8, 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 evidence46 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.665.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.180%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Opus 4.683.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.672.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.180.8%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Opus 4.670.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Claude Opus 4.673.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.184.9%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • CyberGym

    Claude Opus 4.666.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.159.0%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • Gert Labs

    Claude Opus 4.661.85%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Claude Opus 4.619.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude Opus 4.636.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.154.7%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.188.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.175.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.169%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.157.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.153.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.114.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Cybench

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.192.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.10.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 4.680.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified*

    Claude Opus 4.675.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.670.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.653.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.161.5%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • SWE-Rebench

    Claude Opus 4.665.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Claude Opus 4.684.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Claude Opus 4.657.57%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Opus 4.626.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.180.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.154.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 4.691.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Opus 4.689.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Claude Opus 4.695%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.682%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Arcee)

    Claude Opus 4.689.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 4.653%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.162.1%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.640%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.152.2%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • HealthBench Hard

    Claude Opus 4.614.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    Claude Opus 4.652.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.159.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME25 (Arcee)

    Claude Opus 4.699.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude Opus 4.640.700%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Opus 4.622.900%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.677.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Claude Opus 4.651.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Claude Opus 4.683.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Claude Opus 4.664.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.188.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Muse Spark 1.176.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 76.74 versus 67.8, 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 4.6 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 4.6 or Muse Spark 1.1?

The current agentic tasks 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 costs less, Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 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 Opus 4.6 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.