Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3

Updated November 12, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 9 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Anthropic logo
Claude Sonnet 5.5

Anthropic

83.07/100

Supported · Public rank #6

90% interval 78.8–87.3

Model B
Meta logo
Muse Spark 1.3

Meta

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

API price per 1M tokens

Claude Sonnet 5.5: $2 input / $10 output

Muse Spark 1.3: $1.25 input / $4.25 output

Context window

Claude Sonnet 5.5: 1M

Muse Spark 1.3: 1M

Released

Claude Sonnet 5.5: September 28, 2026

Muse Spark 1.3: September 2, 2026

Shared results
9
Claude Sonnet 5.5 only
55
Muse Spark 1.3 only
12
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: Claude Sonnet 5.5How the comparison works

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.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Muse Spark 1.3

    Muse Spark 1.3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Muse Spark 1.3

    Muse Spark 1.3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Muse Spark 1.3

    Muse Spark 1.3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Muse Spark 1.3 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Muse Spark 1.3 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

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.

81.0Claude Sonnet 5.5—Muse Spark 1.3

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
Same basis rules as the category table below

Or describe your own job

The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.

Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.

We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

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.

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math

    Normalized gap 34.1
    Claude Sonnet 5.5:80.488%
    Muse Spark 1.3:46.341%
    Shared source

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math

    Normalized gap 14.7
    Claude Sonnet 5.5:88.772%
    Muse Spark 1.3:74.035%
    Shared source
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, 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.

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
72.7
Supported · #9/135
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 19 vs 10 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
81.0
Supported · #4/162
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 12 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
77.0
Supported · #6/160
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
78.9
Estimated · #7/67
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
82.1
Supported · #6/180
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 17 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
89.7
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Muse Spark 1.3
73.6
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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 Sonnet 5.5
$0.007
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.3
$0.00338
Fits in one request

Muse Spark 1.3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5.5
$0.13
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.3
$0.07525
Fits in one request

Muse Spark 1.3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5.5
$0.16
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.3
$0.0975
Fits in one request

Muse Spark 1.3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Your workload

Enter a month of tokens to price it at both models’ listed API rates.

Claude Sonnet 5.5
$40.00
per month
Muse Spark 1.3
$21.00
per month

Standard listed rates, no batch or volume discounts.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Muse Spark 1.3

$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens

Meta: Muse Spark 1.3 model page

Reasoning profile

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Reasoning

Muse Spark 1.3

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Proprietary

Muse Spark 1.3

Proprietary

License

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Proprietary

Muse Spark 1.3

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Sonnet 5.5

2026-09-28

Muse Spark 1.3

2026-09-02

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.07525. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.16 vs $0.0975.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Spark 1.3?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Spark 1.3?

Muse Spark 1.3 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Spark 1.3?

Muse Spark 1.3 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Spark 1.3?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5.5 and $0.00337 on Muse Spark 1.3; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.07525; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.16 and $0.0975. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Spark 1.3?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence76 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 4.1

    Shared source
    Claude Sonnet 5.563.90%
    Muse Spark 1.314.90%

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Claude Sonnet 5.570.60%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Sonnet 5.564.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    Claude Sonnet 5.587.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1

    Claude Sonnet 5.559.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)

    Claude Sonnet 5.510.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)

    Claude Sonnet 5.593.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass@3

    Claude Sonnet 5.585.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass³

    Claude Sonnet 5.568.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified avg. turns

    Claude Sonnet 5.531.6 turns
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench (Zapier 1.0.6)

    Claude Sonnet 5.544.70%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Sonnet 5.577.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Index

    Claude Sonnet 5.553.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Bench

    Claude Sonnet 5.573.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    Claude Sonnet 5.58%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.30%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • OSWorld 2.1

    Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.1 Offline

    Claude Sonnet 5.583.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Binary Exploitation Benchmark

    Claude Sonnet 5.548
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude Sonnet 5.583.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.372.3%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Muse Spark 1.388.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Muse Spark 1.364.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Muse Spark 1.366.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Muse Spark 1.389.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Muse Spark 1.349.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ApprenticeBench

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Muse Spark 1.319%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CWE-bench v1

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Muse Spark 1.355.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Sonnet 5.546.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • CursorBench 4.0

    Shared source
    Claude Sonnet 5.555.5%
    Muse Spark 1.341.6%

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Sonnet 5.581.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Sonnet 5.590.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Sonnet 5.554.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Claude Sonnet 5.571.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.375.4%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.3 leads this result

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Extended

    Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Claude Sonnet 5.579.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Shared source
    Claude Sonnet 5.561.9%
    Muse Spark 1.325.8%

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • Bug Hunt Bench

    Shared source
    Claude Sonnet 5.551.3 fixes
    Muse Spark 1.332.2 fixes

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • FrontierCode 2.0

    Claude Sonnet 5.541.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench Frontier v4

    Claude Sonnet 5.592.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Muse Spark 1.388.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Atlas Codebase QnA

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Muse Spark 1.359.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR v2 256K-512K

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Muse Spark 1.398.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCR v2 512K-1M

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Muse Spark 1.398.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • ExtractBench Pro

    Claude Sonnet 5.532%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • ExtractBench (LlamaIndex)

    Claude Sonnet 5.594.68%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • ParseBench

    Claude Sonnet 5.569.21%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (no tools)

    Claude Sonnet 5.561.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (tools)

    Claude Sonnet 5.590.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)

    Claude Sonnet 5.50.747
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)

    Claude Sonnet 5.50.963
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Biomedical image analysis

    Claude Sonnet 5.572.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA

    Claude Sonnet 5.576.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Sonnet 5.565.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HealthBench (raw)

    Claude Sonnet 5.569.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench (length-adjusted)

    Claude Sonnet 5.565.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional (raw)

    Claude Sonnet 5.577.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Claude Sonnet 5.569.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)

    Claude Sonnet 5.589.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Claude Sonnet 5.544.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SpatialBench Verified

    Claude Sonnet 5.572.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SingleCellBench

    Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protein Design

    Claude Sonnet 5.551.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Morphology-to-molecule matching

    Claude Sonnet 5.525.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Medicinal chemistry

    Claude Sonnet 5.565.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protein Design library ranking

    Claude Sonnet 5.554.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • De novo protein-binder design

    Claude Sonnet 5.582.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protocols (troubleshooting)

    Claude Sonnet 5.567.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protocols (understanding)

    Claude Sonnet 5.566.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Sonnet 5.556.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • PhysicianBench

    Claude Sonnet 5.563.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • GMMLU

    Claude Sonnet 5.592.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • MILU

    Claude Sonnet 5.591.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Muse Spark 1.315.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (no tools)

    Claude Sonnet 5.586.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (tools)

    Claude Sonnet 5.595.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    Claude Sonnet 5.588.772%
    Muse Spark 1.374.035%

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Shared source
    Claude Sonnet 5.580.488%
    Muse Spark 1.346.341%

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

76 public results · 9 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 7,000+ subscribers.

Last updated November 12, 2026