Coding
Directional only- Granite 4.2 8B
- 36.5
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 61.5
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Granite 4.2 8B vs Muse Spark 1.1
Updated August 31, 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, 77.32 versus 46.88, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Muse Spark 1.1
Muse Spark 1.1 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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
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. Granite 4.2 8B does not fit this workload in one request. Granite 4.2 8B has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.
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.
13 Granite 4.2 8B only
1 Shared
20 Muse Spark 1.1 only
- Shared results
- 1
- Granite 4.2 8B only
- 13
- Muse Spark 1.1 only
- 20
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 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
Not comparable- Granite 4.2 8B
- Not measured
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 80.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Granite 4.2 8B
- Not measured
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Granite 4.2 8B
- 72.2
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 62.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Granite 4.2 8B
- Not measured
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Granite 4.2 8B
- Not measured
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Granite 4.2 8B
- Not measured
- Muse Spark 1.1
- 88.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Granite 4.2 8B
- 79.3
- Muse Spark 1.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Granite 4.2 8B | Muse Spark 1.1 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 36.5 | 61.5 | Directional only3 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | 80.4 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 72.2 | 62.1 | Not comparable2 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 88.4 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 79.3 | Not measured | Not comparable1 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.
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Granite 4.2 8B: 19.1%Muse Spark 1.1: 61.5%Normalized gap 42.4Granite 4.2 8B 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
- Granite 4.2 8B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Muse Spark 1.1
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Granite 4.2 8B has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Granite 4.2 8B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Muse Spark 1.1
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Granite 4.2 8B has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Granite 4.2 8B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Muse Spark 1.1
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Granite 4.2 8B does not fit this workload in one request. Granite 4.2 8B has no comparable published API token rate. 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.
SpecificationGranite 4.2 8BMuse Spark 1.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Granite 4.2 8B
Muse Spark 1.1
1M
API model ID
Granite 4.2 8B
ibm-granite/granite-4.2-8b
IBM Granite 4.2 8B model cardMuse 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.
Granite 4.2 8B
No comparable hosted API rate
IBM Granite 4.2 8B model cardMuse Spark 1.1
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Granite 4.2 8B
Not sourced
Muse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Granite 4.2 8B
Not sourced
Muse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Granite 4.2 8B
Not sourced
Muse Spark 1.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Granite 4.2 8B
Reasoning
Muse Spark 1.1
Reasoning
Weight access
Granite 4.2 8B
Open Weight
Muse Spark 1.1
Proprietary
License
Granite 4.2 8B
Open Weight
Muse Spark 1.1
Proprietary
Release date
Granite 4.2 8B
2026-08-25
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, 77.32 versus 46.88, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Muse Spark 1.1 has the larger documented window (1M).
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 evidence34 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Granite 4.2 8B20.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Granite 4.2 8B58.1%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Granite 4.2 8B52.4%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.180%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.188.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.175.6%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.180.8%SourceNot directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.169%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.184.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.159.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.157.2%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.153.3%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.114.2%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.154.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Cybench
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.192.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ExploitGym
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.10.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Granite 4.2 8B47.7%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Granite 4.2 8B19.1%SourceMuse Spark 1.161.5%SourceMuse Spark 1.1 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Granite 4.2 8B30.8%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Granite 4.2 8B20.6%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Granite 4.2 8B73.2%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Granite 4.2 8B36.1%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.180.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
MRCR 1M
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.154.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Granite 4.2 8B64.1%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Granite 4.2 8B74.0%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
HLE
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.162.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.152.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Granite 4.2 8B—Muse Spark 1.159.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Granite 4.2 8B79.3%SourceMuse Spark 1.1—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Granite 4.2 8B or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score, 77.32 versus 46.88, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Granite 4.2 8B or Muse Spark 1.1?
The current coding 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 is better for agentic tasks, Granite 4.2 8B or Muse Spark 1.1?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Granite 4.2 8B 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, Granite 4.2 8B or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 31, 2026
Watch Granite 4.2 8B 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.