Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

MiniMax M3 vs Muse Spark

Updated October 14, 2026. Rank says Muse Spark 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 has the higher public score estimate, 60.45 versus 55, 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

55/100

Supported · Public rank #68

90% interval 45.6–64.4

Model B
Meta logo

Meta

60.45/100

Supported · Public rank #53

90% interval 50.6–70.3

Shared results
7
MiniMax M3 only
20
Muse Spark only
18
Like-for-like categories
3 / 8
Supported: MiniMax M3 and Muse SparkHow 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

    Muse Spark has the higher public coding point estimate, 49.9 to 36.5, 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

    Muse Spark has the higher public agentic point estimate, 51.2 to 39.6, 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

    MiniMax M3

    MiniMax M3 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

    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

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.

36.5MiniMax M349.9Muse Spark

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Muse Spark 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.

2 categories rest 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.

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 M3
39.6
Supported · #66/125
Muse Spark
51.2
Supported · #45/125
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like
MiniMax M3
36.5
Supported · #73/149
Muse Spark
49.9
Supported · #43/149
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark leads · intervals overlap

Knowledge

Like-for-like
MiniMax M3
49.6
Supported · #80/181
Muse Spark
62.2
Supported · #43/181
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Muse Spark leads · intervals overlap

Multimodal

Directional only
MiniMax M3
61.5
#43/54
Muse Spark
84.4
#12/54
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
MiniMax M3
93.8
#5/144
Muse Spark
93.3
#10/144
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
82.9
#5/29
Muse Spark
57.1
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Muse Spark
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Muse Spark
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 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 M3
$0.0009
Fits in one request
Muse Spark
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

MiniMax M3
$0.0186
Fits in one request
Muse Spark
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

MiniMax M3
$0.03
Fits in one request
Muse Spark
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Muse Spark 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 M3

1M

Muse Spark

262K

API model ID

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Muse Spark

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

MiniMax M3

$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens

Muse Spark

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Muse Spark

Not sourced

Documented outputs

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Muse Spark

Not sourced

Provider availability

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Muse Spark

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

MiniMax M3

Non-Reasoning

Muse Spark

Reasoning

Weight access

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Muse Spark

Proprietary

License

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Muse Spark

Proprietary

Release date

MiniMax M3

2026-06-01

Muse Spark

2026-04-08

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 has the higher public score estimate, 60.45 versus 55, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
MiniMax M3 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, MiniMax M3 or Muse Spark?

Muse Spark has the higher public score estimate, 60.45 versus 55, 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 M3 or Muse Spark?

Muse Spark has the higher public coding point estimate, 49.9 to 36.5, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniMax M3 or Muse Spark?

Muse Spark has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 51.2 to 39.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, MiniMax M3 or Muse Spark?

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 M3 or Muse Spark?

MiniMax M3 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence45 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    MiniMax M383.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    MiniMax M370.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    MiniMax M374.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    MiniMax M374.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark63.8%
    Source

    MiniMax M3 leads this result

  • BankerToolBench

    MiniMax M376.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    MiniMax M319.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    MiniMax M34.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    MiniMax M353.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark59%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark91.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark74.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark43.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    MiniMax M380.5%
    Source
    Muse Spark77.4%
    Source

    MiniMax M3 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    MiniMax M359%
    Source
    Muse Spark52.4%
    Source

    MiniMax M3 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    MiniMax M342.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE V2

    MiniMax M350.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • SVG-Bench

    MiniMax M363.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • KernelBench Hard

    MiniMax M328.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    MiniMax M348.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    MiniMax M382.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    MiniMax M375.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark74.4%
    Source

    MiniMax M3 leads this result

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark80.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark19.67%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark42.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    MiniMax M345.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    MiniMax M391.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    MiniMax M378.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark80.4%
    Source

    Muse Spark leads this result

  • VideoMMMU

    MiniMax M384.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    MiniMax M385.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark86.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark71.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark84.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark33.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark78.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    MiniMax M392.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark89.6%
    Source

    MiniMax M3 leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    MiniMax M384.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark87.3%
    Source

    Muse Spark leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark89.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark50.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark42.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark42.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    MiniMax M3—
    Muse Spark52.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • USAMO 2026

    MiniMax M385.7%
    Source
    Muse Spark—

    Not directly comparable

45 public results · 7 shared

Watch MiniMax M3 vs Muse Spark

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 14, 2026