Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Poolside logo
Model A
Laguna S 2.1

Poolside

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Laguna S 2.1 vs Muse Spark 1.1

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Meta logo
Model B
Muse Spark 1.1

Meta

71.78/100

Supported · Public rank #14

90% interval 66.1–77.4

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.

3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Laguna S 2.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Laguna S 2.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

  • 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.

Shared results
3
Laguna S 2.1 only
3
Muse Spark 1.1 only
23
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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

Directional only
Laguna S 2.1
48.2
Estimated · #77/151
Muse Spark 1.1
62.7
Supported · #18/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 14 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Laguna S 2.1
47.8
Estimated · #87/183
Muse Spark 1.1
59.9
Supported · #25/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Laguna S 2.1
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
78.5
#4/22
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Laguna S 2.1
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
71.5
Supported · #11/181
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Laguna S 2.1
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Laguna S 2.1
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Laguna S 2.1
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
77.2
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Laguna S 2.1
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 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) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

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

Laguna S 2.1
$0.0002
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

Laguna S 2.1
$0.0056
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

Laguna S 2.1
$0.006
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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Laguna S 2.1

1M

Muse Spark 1.1

1M

API model ID

Laguna S 2.1

Not sourced

Muse 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.

Laguna S 2.1

$0.01 per 1M cached input tokens

Muse Spark 1.1

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Laguna S 2.1

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Laguna S 2.1

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Provider availability

Laguna S 2.1

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Laguna S 2.1

Reasoning

Muse Spark 1.1

Reasoning

Weight access

Laguna S 2.1

Open Weight

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

License

Laguna S 2.1

Open Weight

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

Release date

Laguna S 2.1

2026-07-21

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
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
Both models list 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 evidence29 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Laguna S 2.170.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.180%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Laguna S 2.149.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.188.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.175.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.180.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.169%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.184.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.159.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.157.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.153.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.114.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.154.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Cybench

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.192.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.10.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.169.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Laguna S 2.170.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.180.0%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Laguna S 2.178.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Laguna S 2.159.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.161.5%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • deepSwe

    Laguna S 2.140.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.185.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.182.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.154.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.162.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.152.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.159.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.191.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.188.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.188.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Laguna S 2.1—
    Muse Spark 1.176.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Laguna S 2.1 or Muse Spark 1.1?

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, Laguna S 2.1 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 59.9 to 47.8. Laguna S 2.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Laguna S 2.1 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 62.7 to 48.2. Laguna S 2.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Laguna S 2.1 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, Laguna S 2.1 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Laguna S 2.1 vs Muse Spark 1.1

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.