Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.8
- 81.1
- Muse Spark
- 67.8
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Spark
Updated August 26, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score estimate, 76.45 versus 70.87, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
12 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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Opus 4.8
Claude Opus 4.8 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 4.8
Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
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
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.
21 Claude Opus 4.8 only
12 Shared
12 Muse Spark only
- Shared results
- 12
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 21
- Muse Spark only
- 12
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
4 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.
Reasoning
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.8
- 72.1
- Muse Spark
- 42.5
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.8
- 80.3
- Muse Spark
- 59.0
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.8
- 62.7
- Muse Spark
- 50.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Math
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.8
- 53.9
- Muse Spark
- 32.9
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.8
- 77.0
- Muse Spark
- 82.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Spark | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 81.1 | 67.8 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| Reasoning | 72.1 | 42.5 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| Agentic | 80.3 | 59.0 | Directional only3 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 62.7 | 50.4 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Math | 53.9 | 32.9 | Directional only3 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 77.0 | 82.5 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 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.
ARC-AGI-2
Reasoning
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Math
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
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 4.8
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Muse Spark
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Muse Spark
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Muse Spark
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Muse Spark 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 4.8Muse Spark
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.8
Muse Spark
262K
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.8
claude-opus-4-8
Anthropic model overviewMuse Spark
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 4.8
Not published
Muse Spark
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 4.8
text, image
Anthropic model overviewMuse Spark
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.8
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.8
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewMuse Spark
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.8
Reasoning
Muse Spark
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.8
Proprietary
Muse Spark
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 4.8
Proprietary
Muse Spark
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 4.8
2026-05-28
Muse Spark
2026-04-08
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 Opus 4.8 has the higher public score estimate, 76.45 versus 70.87, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Opus 4.8 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 evidence45 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Opus 4.821.1%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.874.6%SourceMuse Spark59%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.884.3%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 4.893.1%SourceMuse Spark74.8%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.883.4%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Claude Opus 4.853.9%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.882.2%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 4.859.9%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.872.97%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Opus 4.821.1%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.820.6%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Claude Opus 4.8—Muse Spark91.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.8—Muse Spark43.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.8—Muse Spark63.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.888.6%SourceMuse Spark77.4%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.869.2%SourceMuse Spark52.4%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.884.4%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.838.4%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.874.6%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Opus 4.858.4%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Opus 4.862.3%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 4.846.5%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pro
Claude Opus 4.8—Muse Spark80.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Opus 4.8—Muse Spark19.67%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.893.6%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.893.6%SourceMuse Spark89.5%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
HLE
Claude Opus 4.857.9%SourceMuse Spark50.4%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.849.8%SourceMuse Spark42.8%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
HealthBench Hard
Claude Opus 4.8—Muse Spark42.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Claude Opus 4.8—Muse Spark52.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
USAMO 2026
Claude Opus 4.896.7%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.847.241%Muse Spark39.000%Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.831.250%Muse Spark14.600%Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result
Multilingual
INCLUDE
Claude Opus 4.887.6%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 4.866.2%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.887.9%SourceMuse Spark84.1%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.889.9%SourceMuse Spark86.4%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.880.5%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.8—Muse Spark80.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Opus 4.8—Muse Spark64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Opus 4.8—Muse Spark71.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Claude Opus 4.8—Muse Spark33.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Opus 4.8—Muse Spark78.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Muse Spark?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score estimate, 76.45 versus 70.87, 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 4.8 or Muse Spark?
Claude Opus 4.8 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Muse Spark?
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 4.8 or Muse Spark?
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 4.8 or Muse Spark?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 26, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Spark
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.