Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Muse Spark
Muse Spark has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Composer 2.5 vs Muse Spark
Updated October 2, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. 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
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. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 2
- Composer 2.5 only
- 6
- Muse Spark only
- 25
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: Muse SparkHow 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.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Composer 2.5 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Composer 2.5 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedChat 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-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Composer 2.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository 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.
—Composer 2.553.2Muse Spark
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.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
6 Composer 2.5 only
2 Shared
25 Muse Spark only
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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 10.3Composer 2.5:69.3%Muse Spark:59%
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, 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- Composer 2.5
- Not ranked
- Muse Spark
- 51.8
- Supported · #41/119
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not ranked
- Muse Spark
- 53.2
- Supported · #37/144
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not ranked
- Muse Spark
- 53.4
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not ranked
- Muse Spark
- 78.5
- #14/49
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not ranked
- Muse Spark
- 60.6
- Supported · #40/171
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not ranked
- Muse Spark
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not ranked
- Muse Spark
- 91.9
- #8/125
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not ranked
- Muse Spark
- 55.1
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Composer 2.5 | Muse Spark | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | 51.8Supported · #41/119 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 5 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | 53.2Supported · #37/144 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 5 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 53.4Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 78.5#14/49 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 60.6Supported · #40/171 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 7 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 91.9#8/125 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 55.1Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, 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
- Composer 2.5
- $0.00175
- 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
- Composer 2.5
- $0.0325
- 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
- Composer 2.5
- $0.135
- Does not fit 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
Composer 2.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.
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.
SpecificationComposer 2.5Muse Spark
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Composer 2.5
200K
Muse Spark
262K
API model ID
Composer 2.5
Not sourced
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Composer 2.5
Not published
Muse Spark
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Composer 2.5
Not sourced
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Composer 2.5
Not sourced
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Provider availability
Composer 2.5
Not sourced
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Composer 2.5
Reasoning
Muse Spark
Reasoning
Weight access
Composer 2.5
Proprietary
Muse Spark
Proprietary
License
Composer 2.5
Proprietary
Muse Spark
Proprietary
Release date
Composer 2.5
2026-05-18
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
- 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
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Muse Spark has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Composer 2.5 or Muse Spark?
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, Composer 2.5 or Muse Spark?
Composer 2.5 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2.5 or Muse Spark?
Composer 2.5 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Composer 2.5 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, Composer 2.5 or Muse Spark?
Muse Spark has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 200K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence33 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Composer 2.569.3%SourceMuse Spark59%SourceComposer 2.5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Composer 2.558.4%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark91.5%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark74.8%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark43.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark63.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Composer 2.569.3%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Composer 2.579.8%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Composer 2.563.2%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Composer 2.556.1%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Composer 2.579.6%SourceMuse Spark74.4%SourceComposer 2.5 leads this result
CursorBench 4.0
Composer 2.527.7%SourceMuse Spark—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark52.4%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pro
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark80.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark19.67%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
ARC-AGI-2
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark42.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
CharXiv
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark86.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark80.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark71.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark84.1%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark33.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark78.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark89.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark50.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark42.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark42.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark52.6%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark89.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Composer 2.5—Muse Spark87.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
33 public results · 2 shared
Watch Composer 2.5 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.
Last updated October 2, 2026