Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

MiniMax M2.7 vs Muse Spark 1.1

Updated October 7, 2026. Rank says Muse Spark 1.1 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 65.95 versus 47.69, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 7 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
MiniMax logo

MiniMax

47.69/100

Supported · Public rank #101

90% interval 36.8–58.6

Model B
Meta logo

Meta

65.95/100

Supported · Public rank #31

90% interval 58.0–73.9

Shared results
7
MiniMax M2.7 only
16
Muse Spark 1.1 only
19
Like-for-like categories
3 / 8
Supported: MiniMax M2.7 and Muse Spark 1.1How 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 1.1

    Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public coding point estimate, 54.2 to 35.4, 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 1.1

    Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 56.9 to 29.5, 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 1.1

    Muse Spark 1.1 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • 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. MiniMax M2.7 does not fit this workload in one request. MiniMax M2.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback
  • 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

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.

35.4MiniMax M2.754.2Muse Spark 1.1

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Muse Spark 1.1 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.

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

Like-for-like
MiniMax M2.7
29.5
Supported · #85/122
Muse Spark 1.1
56.9
Supported · #32/122
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 14 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Coding

Like-for-like
MiniMax M2.7
35.4
Supported · #77/146
Muse Spark 1.1
54.2
Supported · #35/146
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 11 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark 1.1 leads · intervals overlap

Knowledge

Like-for-like
MiniMax M2.7
43.5
Supported · #91/174
Muse Spark 1.1
66.7
Supported · #21/174
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark 1.1 leads

Reasoning

Not comparable
MiniMax M2.7
76.1
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Muse Spark 1.1
75.7
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
MiniMax M2.7
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
78.3
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
MiniMax M2.7
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
MiniMax M2.7
91.6
#10/125
Muse Spark 1.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
MiniMax M2.7
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 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

MiniMax M2.7
$0.0009
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

MiniMax M2.7
$0.0186
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

MiniMax M2.7
$0.078
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Muse Spark 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

MiniMax M2.7 does not fit this workload in one request. MiniMax M2.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.

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.

Context window

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

MiniMax M2.7

200K

Muse Spark 1.1

1M

API model ID

MiniMax M2.7

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.

MiniMax M2.7

Not published

Muse Spark 1.1

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Documented outputs

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Provider availability

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

MiniMax M2.7

Non-Reasoning

Muse Spark 1.1

Reasoning

Weight access

MiniMax M2.7

Open Weight

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

License

MiniMax M2.7

Open Weight

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

Release date

MiniMax M2.7

2026-03-18

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, 65.95 versus 47.69, but the 90% score intervals 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.

Questions

Which is better, MiniMax M2.7 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public score estimate, 65.95 versus 47.69, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, MiniMax M2.7 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public coding point estimate, 54.2 to 35.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniMax M2.7 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 56.9 to 29.5, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, MiniMax M2.7 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, MiniMax M2.7 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence42 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    MiniMax M2.757%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    MiniMax M2.746.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.175.6%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • MLE-Bench Lite

    MiniMax M2.766.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MM-ClawBench

    MiniMax M2.762.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    MiniMax M2.748.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    MiniMax M2.740.40%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    MiniMax M2.748.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.169.3%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.180.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.188.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.180.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.169%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.184.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.159.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.157.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.153.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.114.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.154.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Cybench

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.192.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.10.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified*

    MiniMax M2.775.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    MiniMax M2.756.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.161.5%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • SWE-Rebench

    MiniMax M2.751.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    MiniMax M2.776.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Multi-SWE Bench

    MiniMax M2.752.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE-Pro

    MiniMax M2.755.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    MiniMax M2.739.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    MiniMax M2.727.04%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    MiniMax M2.771.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    MiniMax M2.779.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.185.9%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    MiniMax M2.773.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.182.0%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.180.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.154.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.188.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.176.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    MiniMax M2.787.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Arcee)

    MiniMax M2.780.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    MiniMax M2.786.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.191.2%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    MiniMax M2.780.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.188.7%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • HLE

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.162.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.152.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    MiniMax M2.7—
    Muse Spark 1.159.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME25 (Arcee)

    MiniMax M2.780.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

42 public results · 7 shared

Watch MiniMax M2.7 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 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 7, 2026