Coding
Like-for-like- GPT-5.6 Terra
- 63.4
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 61.5
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Muse Spark 1.1
Updated August 22, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 76.74 versus 72.56, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
8 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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
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
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
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.
15 GPT-5.6 Terra only
8 Shared
13 Muse Spark 1.1 only
- Shared results
- 8
- GPT-5.6 Terra only
- 15
- Muse Spark 1.1 only
- 13
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
Agentic
Directional only- GPT-5.6 Terra
- 87.4
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 80.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- 83.9
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- 92.9
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 62.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- 80.8
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- Not measured
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- 80.7
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 88.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- Not measured
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GPT-5.6 Terra | Muse Spark 1.1 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 63.4 | 61.5 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| Agentic | 87.4 | 80.4 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 83.9 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 92.9 | 62.1 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 80.8 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 80.7 | 88.4 | Not comparable1 vs 1 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
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
GPT-5.6 Terra: 63.4%Muse Spark 1.1: 61.5%Normalized gap 1.9GPT-5.6 Terra source Muse Spark 1.1 source
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
- GPT-5.6 Terra
- $0.01
- Fits in one request
- Muse Spark 1.1
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GPT-5.6 Terra
- $0.17
- Fits in one request
- Muse Spark 1.1
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- GPT-5.6 Terra
- $0.25
- Fits in one request
- Muse Spark 1.1
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Muse Spark 1.1 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.
SpecificationGPT-5.6 TerraMuse Spark 1.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.6 Terra
1.05M
OpenAI model catalogMuse Spark 1.1
1M
API model ID
GPT-5.6 Terra
gpt-5.6-terra
OpenAI model catalogMuse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-5.6 Terra
$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI API pricingMuse Spark 1.1
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
GPT-5.6 Terra
text, image
OpenAI model catalogMuse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GPT-5.6 Terra
Muse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
GPT-5.6 Terra
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogMuse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GPT-5.6 Terra
Reasoning
Muse Spark 1.1
Reasoning
Weight access
GPT-5.6 Terra
Proprietary
Muse Spark 1.1
Proprietary
License
GPT-5.6 Terra
Proprietary
Muse Spark 1.1
Proprietary
Release date
GPT-5.6 Terra
2026-07-09
Muse Spark 1.1
2026-07-09
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
- Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 76.74 versus 72.56, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented window (1.05M).
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 evidence36 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
GPT-5.6 Terra20.8%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.6 Terra87.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.180%SourceGPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
BrowseComp
GPT-5.6 Terra87.5%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
GPT-5.6 Terra50.2%SourceMuse Spark 1.114.2%SourceGPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
CyberGym
GPT-5.6 Terra81.8%SourceMuse Spark 1.159.0%SourceGPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
ExploitGym
GPT-5.6 Terra23.2%SourceMuse Spark 1.10.8%SourceGPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
Toolathlon
GPT-5.6 Terra53.1%SourceMuse Spark 1.175.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.1 leads this result
MCP Atlas
GPT-5.6 Terra—Muse Spark 1.188.1%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
GPT-5.6 Terra—Muse Spark 1.180.8%SourceNot directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
GPT-5.6 Terra—Muse Spark 1.169%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
GPT-5.6 Terra—Muse Spark 1.184.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
GPT-5.6 Terra—Muse Spark 1.157.2%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
GPT-5.6 Terra—Muse Spark 1.153.3%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
GPT-5.6 Terra—Muse Spark 1.154.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Cybench
GPT-5.6 Terra—Muse Spark 1.192.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
GPT-5.6 Terra63.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.161.5%SourceGPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.6 Terra87.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.180.0%SourceGPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
deepSwe
GPT-5.6 Terra69.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
GPT-5.6 Terra55.8%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
GPT-5.6 Terra64.9%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
GPT-5.6 Terra92.9%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
GPT-5.6 Terra92.9%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
GPT-5.6 Terra57.7%SourceMuse Spark 1.159.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.1 leads this result
HealthBench Hard
GPT-5.6 Terra32.7%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
HLE
GPT-5.6 Terra—Muse Spark 1.162.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
GPT-5.6 Terra—Muse Spark 1.152.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, GPT-5.6 Terra or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 76.74 versus 72.56, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, GPT-5.6 Terra or Muse Spark 1.1?
GPT-5.6 Terra leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Terra or Muse Spark 1.1?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, GPT-5.6 Terra or Muse Spark 1.1?
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, GPT-5.6 Terra or Muse Spark 1.1?
GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 22, 2026
Watch GPT-5.6 Terra vs Muse Spark 1.1
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.