Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
BenchLM
Meta logo
Model A
Muse Spark 1.3

Meta

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Seed 2.1 Turbo

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

ByteDance logo
Model B
Seed 2.1 Turbo

ByteDance

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

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.

2 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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Muse Spark 1.3

    Muse Spark 1.3 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

    Muse Spark 1.3 and Seed 2.1 Turbo are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Muse Spark 1.3 and Seed 2.1 Turbo are not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    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

    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
2
Muse Spark 1.3 only
8
Seed 2.1 Turbo only
9
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

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

Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Seed 2.1 Turbo
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Seed 2.1 Turbo
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3
78.0
#5/20
Seed 2.1 Turbo
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Seed 2.1 Turbo
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Seed 2.1 Turbo
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Seed 2.1 Turbo
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Seed 2.1 Turbo
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Muse Spark 1.3
Not ranked
Seed 2.1 Turbo
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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

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

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

Muse Spark 1.3
$0.00338
Fits in one request
Seed 2.1 Turbo
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Seed 2.1 Turbo has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Muse Spark 1.3
$0.07525
Fits in one request
Seed 2.1 Turbo
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Seed 2.1 Turbo has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Muse Spark 1.3
$0.0975
Fits in one request
Seed 2.1 Turbo
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Seed 2.1 Turbo 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.

Reasoning profile

Muse Spark 1.3

Reasoning

Seed 2.1 Turbo

Reasoning

Weight access

Muse Spark 1.3

Proprietary

Seed 2.1 Turbo

Proprietary

License

Muse Spark 1.3

Proprietary

Seed 2.1 Turbo

Proprietary

Release date

Muse Spark 1.3

2026-09-02

Seed 2.1 Turbo

2026-06-24

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
Muse Spark 1.3 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 evidence19 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Muse Spark 1.388.8%
    Source
    Seed 2.1 Turbo67.6%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.3 leads this result

  • JobBench

    Muse Spark 1.364.9%
    Source
    Seed 2.1 Turbo—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Muse Spark 1.366.9%
    Source
    Seed 2.1 Turbo—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Muse Spark 1.389.4%
    Source
    Seed 2.1 Turbo—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Muse Spark 1.349.4%
    Source
    Seed 2.1 Turbo—

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Muse Spark 1.388.8%
    Source
    Seed 2.1 Turbo67.6%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.3 leads this result

  • DeepSWE

    Muse Spark 1.375.4%
    Source
    Seed 2.1 Turbo—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Atlas Codebase QnA

    Muse Spark 1.359.4%
    Source
    Seed 2.1 Turbo—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Muse Spark 1.3—
    Seed 2.1 Turbo43.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR v2 256K-512K

    Muse Spark 1.398.5%
    Source
    Seed 2.1 Turbo—

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCR v2 512K-1M

    Muse Spark 1.398.1%
    Source
    Seed 2.1 Turbo—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • SuperGPQA

    Muse Spark 1.3—
    Seed 2.1 Turbo67.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MathVision

    Muse Spark 1.3—
    Seed 2.1 Turbo90.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Muse Spark 1.3—
    Seed 2.1 Turbo80.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    Muse Spark 1.3—
    Seed 2.1 Turbo11.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Muse Spark 1.3—
    Seed 2.1 Turbo62.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Muse Spark 1.3—
    Seed 2.1 Turbo82.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Muse Spark 1.3—
    Seed 2.1 Turbo71.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME

    Muse Spark 1.3—
    Seed 2.1 Turbo89.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Muse Spark 1.3 or Seed 2.1 Turbo?

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, Muse Spark 1.3 or Seed 2.1 Turbo?

Muse Spark 1.3 and Seed 2.1 Turbo are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Muse Spark 1.3 or Seed 2.1 Turbo?

Muse Spark 1.3 and Seed 2.1 Turbo are not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Muse Spark 1.3 or Seed 2.1 Turbo?

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, Muse Spark 1.3 or Seed 2.1 Turbo?

Muse Spark 1.3 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Muse Spark 1.3 vs Seed 2.1 Turbo

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.