Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Spark 1.1
Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Muse Spark 1.1 #7 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Muse Spark 1.1 share 23 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 56 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 17 to Muse Spark 1.1.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 23
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 56
- Muse Spark 1.1 only
- 17
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Muse Spark 1.1 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 23 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 76.6. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 89.5 against 61.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 79.2% to 61.5%. Muse Spark 1.1 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
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 | Claude Opus 5 | Δ | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 28.0 | Muse Spark 1.161.5 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | Margin→ 21.5 | Muse Spark 1.188.4 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 10.4 | Muse Spark 1.180.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | Margin← 2.6 | Muse Spark 1.162.1 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | Muse Spark 1.1Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 79.2%B 61.5%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 17.7SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%; Muse Spark 1.1 scored 61.5%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 64.7%B 62.1%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 2.6HLE: Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%; Muse Spark 1.1 scored 62.1%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Muse Spark 1.1Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Muse Spark 1.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Muse Spark 1.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Muse Spark 1.11M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins36 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | 84.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | 14.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | 88.1% | Muse Spark 1.1 leads |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | 1375 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | 37.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 43.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | 25.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | 868 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | 77.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 80% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 75.6% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 59.0% | Not comparable |
| Finance Agent v2Source | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 53.3% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 54.7% | Not comparable |
| CybenchSource | — | 92.9% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 0.8% | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 42.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 93.1% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | 61.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 71.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 58.2% | Muse Spark 1.1 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 80.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning6 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | 62.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | 52.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | 59.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | 50.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 89.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 45.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | 18.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 40.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 38.1% | Muse Spark 1.1 leads |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
MultimodalMuse Spark 1.1 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| BabyVisionSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1299 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 76.6. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 79.2% and 61.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 62.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Accuracy is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 61.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 80.4. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88.4 versus 66.9. Claude Opus 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.