Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Ornith-1.5-397B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Muse Spark vs Ornith-1.5-397B
Updated October 2, 2026. Rank says Ornith-1.5-397B is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public point estimate, 62.72 versus 61.25. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 6 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 6
- Muse Spark only
- 21
- Ornith-1.5-397B only
- 12
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: Muse Spark · Estimated: Ornith-1.5-397B. 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.
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
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Ornith-1.5-397B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documentedChat 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-ratesCache-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-ratesRepository 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.
53.2Muse Spark54.7Ornith-1.5-397B
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Ornith-1.5-397B 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.
21 Muse Spark only
6 Shared
12 Ornith-1.5-397B only
3 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.
SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 12.7Muse Spark:52.4%Ornith-1.5-397B:65.1%SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 8.6Muse Spark:77.4%Ornith-1.5-397B:86%HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 5.8Muse Spark:50.4%Ornith-1.5-397B:44.6%HLE w/o toolsKnowledge
Normalized gap 1.8Muse Spark:42.8%Ornith-1.5-397B:44.6%
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
Directional only- Muse Spark
- 51.8
- Supported · #41/119
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 56.8
- Estimated · #29/119
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Muse Spark
- 53.2
- Supported · #37/144
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 54.7
- Estimated · #34/144
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Muse Spark
- 60.6
- Supported · #40/171
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 63.3
- Estimated · #36/171
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Muse Spark
- 53.4
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Muse Spark
- 78.5
- #14/49
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Muse Spark
- Not ranked
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Muse Spark
- 91.9
- #8/125
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Muse Spark
- 55.1
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Muse Spark | Ornith-1.5-397B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 51.8Supported · #41/119 | 56.8Estimated · #29/119 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 53.2Supported · #37/144 | 54.7Estimated · #34/144 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 60.6Supported · #40/171 | 63.3Estimated · #36/171 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 53.4Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 78.5#14/49 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 91.9#8/125 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 55.1Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | 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
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.5-397B 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
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.5-397B 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
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Muse Spark has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.5-397B 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.
SpecificationMuse SparkOrnith-1.5-397B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Muse Spark
262K
Ornith-1.5-397B
API model ID
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-397B
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
Ornith-1.5-397B
No comparable hosted API rate
Ornith-1.5-397B model cardDocumented inputs
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Muse Spark
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Muse Spark
Reasoning
Ornith-1.5-397B
Reasoning
Weight access
Muse Spark
Proprietary
Ornith-1.5-397B
Open Weight
License
Muse Spark
Proprietary
Ornith-1.5-397B
Open Weight
Release date
Muse Spark
2026-04-08
Ornith-1.5-397B
2026-08-18
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
- Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public point estimate, 62.72 versus 61.25. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 262K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Muse Spark or Ornith-1.5-397B?
Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public point estimate, 62.72 versus 61.25. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Muse Spark or Ornith-1.5-397B?
Ornith-1.5-397B scores higher for coding on the public lane, 54.7 to 53.2. Ornith-1.5-397B 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, Muse Spark or Ornith-1.5-397B?
Ornith-1.5-397B scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 56.8 to 51.8. Ornith-1.5-397B 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, Muse Spark or Ornith-1.5-397B?
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 Ornith-1.5-397B?
Both models list the same context window, 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 evidence39 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Muse Spark59%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Muse Spark91.5%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Muse Spark74.8%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Muse Spark43.5%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Muse Spark63.8%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B81.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Muse Spark—Ornith-1.5-397B86.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Muse Spark—Ornith-1.5-397B56.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Muse Spark—Ornith-1.5-397B80%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Muse Spark—Ornith-1.5-397B71.2%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Muse Spark—Ornith-1.5-397B80.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Muse Spark—Ornith-1.5-397B86.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Muse Spark77.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B86%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Muse Spark52.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B65.1%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B leads this result
LiveCodeBench Pro
Muse Spark80.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Muse Spark19.67%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Muse Spark74.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Muse Spark—Ornith-1.5-397B86.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Muse Spark—Ornith-1.5-397B79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSWE
Muse Spark—Ornith-1.5-397B56.0%SourceNot directly comparable
frontierBench
Muse Spark—Ornith-1.5-397B13.5%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Muse Spark—Ornith-1.5-397B59.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
ARC-AGI-2
Muse Spark42.5%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
CharXiv
Muse Spark86.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Muse Spark80.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
ERQA
Muse Spark64.7%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Muse Spark71.3%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Muse Spark84.1%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Muse Spark33.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Muse Spark78.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Muse Spark89.5%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B92.8%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B leads this result
HLE
Muse Spark50.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B44.6%SourceMuse Spark leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Muse Spark42.8%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B44.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B leads this result
HealthBench Hard
Muse Spark42.8%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Muse Spark52.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Muse Spark89.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Muse Spark87.3%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Muse Spark—Ornith-1.5-397B92.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
39 public results · 6 shared
Watch Muse Spark vs Ornith-1.5-397B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated October 2, 2026