Agentic
Like-for-like- Composer 2.5
- 69.3
- Muse Spark
- 59.0
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Composer 2.5 leads
Composer 2.5 vs Muse Spark
Updated August 18, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
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.
1 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.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Composer 2.5
Composer 2.5 leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Muse Spark
Muse Spark has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
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
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-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.
4 Composer 2.5 only
1 Shared
23 Muse Spark only
- Shared results
- 1
- Composer 2.5 only
- 4
- Muse Spark only
- 23
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
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.
Coding
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- 67.8
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- 42.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- 50.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- 32.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- 82.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Composer 2.5
- Not measured
- Muse Spark
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Composer 2.5 | Muse Spark | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 69.3 | 59.0 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Composer 2.5 leads |
| Coding | Not measured | 67.8 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 42.5 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 50.4 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 32.9 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 82.5 | Not comparable0 vs 2 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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
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.
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.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence28 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Composer 2.569.3%SourceMuse Spark59%SourceComposer 2.5 leads this result
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
cursorBench32
Composer 2.556.1%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
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
Math
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
Frequently asked 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?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2.5 or Muse Spark?
Composer 2.5 leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
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.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 18, 2026
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.