Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Muse Spark vs Muse Wonder Full

Updated October 13, 2026. Rank says Muse Wonder Full 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

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Meta logo

Meta

59.94/100

Supported · Public rank #52

90% interval 50.0–69.9

Model B
Meta logo

Meta

74.13/100

Estimated · Public rank #11

Conditional range 59.8–88.5

Shared results
0
Muse Spark only
25
Muse Wonder Full only
6
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8
Supported: Muse Spark · Estimated: Muse Wonder Full. 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 Wonder Full

    Muse Wonder Full has the higher public coding point estimate, 73.8 to 50.2, 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 Wonder Full

    Muse Wonder Full has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Muse Wonder Full is 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

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.

50.2Muse Spark73.8Muse Wonder Full

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Muse Wonder Full 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.

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.

Coding

Like-for-like
Muse Spark
50.2
Supported · #42/148
Muse Wonder Full
73.8
Supported · #5/148
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Muse Wonder Full leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Muse Spark
61.8
Supported · #43/180
Muse Wonder Full
77.7
Supported · #10/180
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Muse Wonder Full leads · intervals overlap

Agentic

Not comparable
Muse Spark
50.4
Supported · #45/123
Muse Wonder Full
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Muse Spark
57.1
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Muse Wonder Full
83.4
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Muse Spark
84.4
#12/54
Muse Wonder Full
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Muse Spark
Not ranked
Muse Wonder Full
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Muse Spark
93.3
#10/127
Muse Wonder Full
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Muse Spark
Not ranked
Muse Wonder Full
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

Muse Spark
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Muse Wonder Full
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Wonder Full has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Muse Spark
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Muse Wonder Full
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Wonder Full has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Muse Spark
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Muse Wonder Full
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate. Muse Wonder Full 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.

API model ID

Muse Spark

Not sourced

Muse Wonder Full

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

Muse Spark

No comparable hosted API rate

Muse Wonder Full

No comparable hosted API rate

Meta: Muse Wonder models and pricing

Documented inputs

Muse Spark

Not sourced

Muse Wonder Full

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Muse Spark

Not sourced

Muse Wonder Full

Not sourced

Provider availability

Muse Spark

Not sourced

Muse Wonder Full

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Muse Spark

Reasoning

Muse Wonder Full

Reasoning

Weight access

Muse Spark

Proprietary

Muse Wonder Full

Proprietary

License

Muse Spark

Proprietary

Muse Wonder Full

Proprietary

Release date

Muse Spark

2026-04-08

Muse Wonder Full

2026-10-12

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
Both entries list Meta as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
Quality signal
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Muse Wonder Full has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Muse Spark or Muse Wonder Full?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Muse Spark or Muse Wonder Full?

Muse Wonder Full has the higher public coding point estimate, 73.8 to 50.2, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Muse Spark or Muse Wonder Full?

Muse Wonder Full is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Muse Spark or Muse Wonder Full?

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 or Muse Wonder Full?

Muse Wonder Full 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 evidence31 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Muse Spark59%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Muse Spark91.5%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Muse Spark74.8%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Muse Spark43.5%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Muse Spark63.8%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Muse Spark—
    Muse Wonder Full75.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    Muse Spark—
    Muse Wonder Full59.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Muse Spark77.4%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Muse Spark52.4%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    Muse Spark80.0%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Muse Spark19.67%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Muse Spark74.4%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Muse Spark—
    Muse Wonder Full79.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Muse Spark—
    Muse Wonder Full59.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • sweMarathon

    Muse Spark—
    Muse Wonder Full57.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Muse Spark42.5%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Muse Spark86.4%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Muse Spark80.4%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Muse Spark64.7%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Muse Spark71.3%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Muse Spark84.1%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    Muse Spark33.0%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Muse Spark78.4%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Muse Spark89.5%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Muse Spark50.4%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Muse Spark42.8%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    Muse Spark42.8%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    Muse Spark52.6%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Muse Spark89.6%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Muse Spark87.3%
    Source
    Muse Wonder Full—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Muse Spark—
    Muse Wonder Full62.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

31 public results · 0 shared

Watch Muse Spark vs Muse Wonder Full

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 13, 2026