Agentic
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 5.5
- 82.7
- Supported · #1/156
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 59.8
- Supported · #26/156
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 11 vs 14 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.1
Decision reading
Claude Opus 5.5 has the higher public score estimate, 81.03 versus 69.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Updated September 22, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 5.5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
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 Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5 leads on the public agentic lane, 82.7 to 59.8, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Opus 5.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is 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
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
76.0Claude Opus 5.559.9Muse Spark 1.1
Directional only · BenchAlign
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
43 Claude Opus 5.5 only
5 Shared
21 Muse Spark 1.1 only
- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Opus 5.5 only
- 43
- Muse Spark 1.1 only
- 21
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 5.5
- 76.0
- Estimated · #4/159
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 59.9
- Supported · #27/159
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 5.5
- 81.5
- Estimated · #3/187
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 70.3
- Supported · #12/187
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 17 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- 78.5
- #4/19
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 74.4
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- 88.8
- #3/50
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 77.3
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- Not ranked
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- Not ranked
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- Not ranked
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 5.5 | Muse Spark 1.1 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 82.7Supported · #1/156 | 59.8Supported · #26/156 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 11 vs 14 public rows | Claude Opus 5.5 leads |
| Coding | 76.0Estimated · #4/159 | 59.9Supported · #27/159 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 81.5Estimated · #3/187 | 70.3Supported · #12/187 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 17 vs 5 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 78.5#4/19 | 74.4Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 88.8#3/50 | 77.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
OSWorld 2.0
Agentic
Claude Opus 5.5: 48.7%Muse Spark 1.1: 14.2%Normalized gap 34.5Claude Opus 5.5 source Muse Spark 1.1 sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Opus 5.5: 89.9%Muse Spark 1.1: 61.5%Normalized gap 28.4Claude Opus 5.5 source Muse Spark 1.1 sourceHLE w/o tools
Knowledge
Claude Opus 5.5: 64.4%Muse Spark 1.1: 52.2%Normalized gap 12.2Claude Opus 5.5 source Muse Spark 1.1 sourceHLE
Knowledge
Claude Opus 5.5: 67.7%Muse Spark 1.1: 62.1%Normalized gap 5.6Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5
- $0.014
- 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 5.5
- $0.26
- 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 5.5
- $0.32
- 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.
SpecificationClaude Opus 5.5Muse Spark 1.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 5.5
Muse Spark 1.1
1M
API model ID
Claude Opus 5.5
claude-opus-5-5
Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 model documentationMuse 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 5.5
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude Opus 5.5 model documentationMuse Spark 1.1
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 5.5
Muse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 5.5
Muse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 5.5
Generally Available · Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry, Claude Platform on AWS
Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 model documentationMuse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 5.5
Reasoning
Muse Spark 1.1
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 5.5
Proprietary
Muse Spark 1.1
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 5.5
Proprietary
Muse Spark 1.1
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 5.5
2026-09-22
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 Opus 5.5 has the higher public score estimate, 81.03 versus 69.94, 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 evidence69 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Opus 5.566.40%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Opus 5.558.7%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Opus 5.540.0%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Opus 5.567.7%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 5.548.7%SourceMuse Spark 1.114.2%SourceClaude Opus 5.5 leads this result
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 5.58.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 5.591.2%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Opus 5.577.8%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Opus 5.582.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Opus 5.572.2%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Opus 5.526.9 turnsSourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.180%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.188.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.175.6%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.180.8%SourceNot directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.169%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.184.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.159.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.157.2%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.153.3%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.154.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Cybench
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.192.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ExploitGym
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.10.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.169.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 5.554.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
cursorBench40
Claude Opus 5.557.8%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 5.589.9%SourceMuse Spark 1.161.5%SourceClaude Opus 5.5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 5.593.9%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Opus 5.561.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Opus 5.574.2%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Claude Opus 5.563.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Opus 5.562.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Opus 5.591.2%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.180.0%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.185.9%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.182.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
MRCR 1M
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.154.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Chartography (tools)
Claude Opus 5.589.0%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Claude Opus 5.564.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Claude Opus 5.50.730SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Claude Opus 5.50.962SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Biomedical image analysis
Claude Opus 5.571.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA
Claude Opus 5.578.9%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 5.567.7%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.188.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.176.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
HLE
Claude Opus 5.567.7%SourceMuse Spark 1.162.1%SourceClaude Opus 5.5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 5.564.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.152.2%SourceClaude Opus 5.5 leads this result
HealthBench (raw)
Claude Opus 5.568.1%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Claude Opus 5.560.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Claude Opus 5.565.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.159.3%SourceClaude Opus 5.5 leads this result
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Claude Opus 5.577.1%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Claude Opus 5.589.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Claude Opus 5.550.0%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Claude Opus 5.572.0%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Claude Opus 5.561.2%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Morphology-to-molecule matching
Claude Opus 5.534.0%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Medicinal chemistry
Claude Opus 5.563.5%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Claude Opus 5.560.2%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Protein Design library ranking
Claude Opus 5.556.0%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
De novo protein-binder design
Claude Opus 5.582.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Claude Opus 5.573.7%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Claude Opus 5.569.0%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.191.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Opus 5.5—Muse Spark 1.188.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Math
Questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Claude Opus 5.5 has the higher public score estimate, 81.03 versus 69.94, 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 5.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 76 to 59.9. Claude Opus 5.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Claude Opus 5.5 leads the public agentic tasks lane, 82.7 to 59.8, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 22, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 5.5 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.