Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Kimi K2.7 Code vs Muse Spark 1.2

Updated November 4, 2026. Rank says Muse Spark 1.2 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public point estimate, 65.41 versus 53.59. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Moonshot AI logo

Moonshot AI

53.59/100

Estimated · Public rank #80

Conditional range 39.2–67.9

Model B
Meta logo

Meta

65.41/100

Supported · Public rank #28

90% interval 59.0–71.8

Shared results
2
Kimi K2.7 Code only
11
Muse Spark 1.2 only
7
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8
Estimated: Kimi K2.7 Code · Supported: Muse Spark 1.2. 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.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Muse Spark 1.2

    Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public coding point estimate, 52.8 to 42, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Muse Spark 1.2

    Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 59.9 to 39.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Muse Spark 1.2

    Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Kimi K2.7 Code

    Kimi K2.7 Code 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

    Kimi K2.7 Code

    Kimi K2.7 Code has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Kimi K2.7 Code

    Kimi K2.7 Code has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    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.

42.0Kimi K2.7 Code52.8Muse Spark 1.2

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

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.

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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

Like-for-like
Kimi K2.7 Code
39.9
Supported · #74/135
Muse Spark 1.2
59.9
Supported · #31/135
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark 1.2 leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like
Kimi K2.7 Code
42.0
Supported · #65/156
Muse Spark 1.2
52.8
Supported · #37/156
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark 1.2 leads · intervals overlap

Knowledge

Directional only
Kimi K2.7 Code
54.7
Estimated · #59/179
Muse Spark 1.2
64.7
Supported · #33/179
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Kimi K2.7 Code
79.5
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Muse Spark 1.2
79.3
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Kimi K2.7 Code
76.6
#68/157
Muse Spark 1.2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Kimi K2.7 Code
58.3
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Muse Spark 1.2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 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

Kimi K2.7 Code
$0.00295
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.2
$0.00338
Fits in one request

Kimi K2.7 Code has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Kimi K2.7 Code
$0.0595
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.2
$0.07525
Fits in one request

Kimi K2.7 Code has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Kimi K2.7 Code
$0.097
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.2
$0.0975
Fits in one request

Kimi K2.7 Code 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.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Kimi K2.7 Code

$0.19 per 1M cached input tokens

Muse Spark 1.2

$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens

Meta: Muse Spark 1.2 model page

Documented inputs

Kimi K2.7 Code

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.2

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Kimi K2.7 Code

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.2

Not sourced

Provider availability

Kimi K2.7 Code

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.2

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Kimi K2.7 Code

Reasoning

Muse Spark 1.2

Reasoning

Weight access

Kimi K2.7 Code

Open Weight

Muse Spark 1.2

Proprietary

License

Kimi K2.7 Code

Open Weight

Muse Spark 1.2

Proprietary

Release date

Kimi K2.7 Code

2026-06-12

Muse Spark 1.2

2026-08-05

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 1.2 has the higher public point estimate, 65.41 versus 53.59. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.0595 vs $0.07525. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.097 vs $0.0975.
Context tradeoff
Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Kimi K2.7 Code or Muse Spark 1.2?

Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public point estimate, 65.41 versus 53.59. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.7 Code or Muse Spark 1.2?

Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public coding point estimate, 52.8 to 42, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.7 Code or Muse Spark 1.2?

Muse Spark 1.2 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 59.9 to 39.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, Kimi K2.7 Code or Muse Spark 1.2?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00295 on Kimi K2.7 Code and $0.00337 on Muse Spark 1.2; repository review costs $0.0595 and $0.07525; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.097 and $0.0975. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Kimi K2.7 Code or Muse Spark 1.2?

Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Self-host vs API cost

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

Kimi K2.7 Code
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$27,962
Break-even500M/day
Muse Spark 1.2
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 evidence20 rows

Agentic

  • Kimi Claw 24/7

    Kimi K2.7 Code46.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Kimi K2.7 Code76%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Mark Verified

    Kimi K2.7 Code81.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Kimi K2.7 Code67.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.269.7%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.2 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Kimi K2.7 Code—
    Muse Spark 1.282.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    Kimi K2.7 Code—
    Muse Spark 1.20%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Kimi Code Bench v2

    Kimi K2.7 Code62.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Kimi K2.7 Code53.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • MLS-Bench Lite

    Kimi K2.7 Code35.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • CursorBench 3.2

    Kimi K2.7 Code49.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Kimi K2.7 Code52.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Kimi K2.7 Code82.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Kimi K2.7 Code78.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.286.6%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.2 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Kimi K2.7 Code—
    Muse Spark 1.282.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Kimi K2.7 Code—
    Muse Spark 1.259.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Kimi K2.7 Code—
    Muse Spark 1.287.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Kimi K2.7 Code—
    Muse Spark 1.212.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Kimi K2.7 Code—
    Muse Spark 1.288.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Kimi K2.7 Code54.035%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Kimi K2.7 Code12.195%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.2—

    Not directly comparable

20 public results · 2 shared

Watch Kimi K2.7 Code vs Muse Spark 1.2

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 6,100+ subscribers.

Last updated November 4, 2026