Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Muse Spark 1.3

Updated October 17, 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. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
DeepSeek logo

DeepSeek

63.19/100

Estimated · Public rank #42

Conditional range 48.8–77.5

Model B
Meta logo

Meta

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Shared results
5
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 only
36
Muse Spark 1.3 only
15
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Estimated: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How 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

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 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

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 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.

47.2DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—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.

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.

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.

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
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
54.5
Supported · #43/128
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 11 vs 9 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
47.2
Supported · #49/150
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 15 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
60.7
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Muse Spark 1.3
82.9
#6/28
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
63.5
Estimated · #41/184
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
87.4
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Muse Spark 1.3
78.5
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
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

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.0033
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.3
$0.00338
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.07788
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

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.0748
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.3
$0.0975
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

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.

Reasoning profile

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Reasoning

Muse Spark 1.3

Reasoning

Weight access

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Open Weight

Muse Spark 1.3

Proprietary

License

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Open Weight

Muse Spark 1.3

Proprietary

Release date

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

2026-08-13

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: $0.07788 vs $0.07525. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0748 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, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 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, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 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, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 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, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Muse Spark 1.3?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0033 on DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and $0.00337 on Muse Spark 1.3; repository review costs $0.07788 and $0.07525; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0748 and $0.0975. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Muse Spark 1.3?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$37,843
Break-even—
Muse Spark 1.3
API / mo$4,125
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence56 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.388.8%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.3 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081360.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081373.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081351.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081374.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081325.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081331.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.349.4%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.3 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081354.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.372.3%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.3 leads this result

  • JobBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.364.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.366.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.389.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ApprenticeBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.319%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CWE-bench v1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.355.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.30%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pass@1-COT

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081393.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Codeforces

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 08133206.0
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081380.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081355.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081376.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081349.93%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.388.8%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.3 leads this result

  • NL2Repo

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081361.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081362.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.375.4%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.3 leads this result

  • DSBench-FullStack

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081371.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-Hard

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081359.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081396.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Atlas Codebase QnA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.359.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CursorBench 4.0

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.341.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Bug Hunt Bench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.332.2 fixes
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.325.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • CorpusQA 1M

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081362.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.00%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081361.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCR v2 256K-512K

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.398.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCR v2 512K-1M

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.398.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chinese-SimpleQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081384.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081342.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081392.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.315.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081395.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081389.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081338.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex Shortlist

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.3—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.374.035%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Muse Spark 1.346.341%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

56 public results · 5 shared

Watch DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 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 5,600+ readers.

Last updated October 17, 2026