Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Data as of October 20, 2026 · How the score is built

Spark-X2.6-4B

Decision readingSpark-X2.6-4B scores 40.1 out of 100 and ranks #140 of 227. This profile shows 20 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Instruction Following at #62. Published weights can be self-hosted, but infrastructure cost varies and is not a comparable API token rate.

Released Oct 19, 2026 — see all recent releases

Decision snapshot

Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.

Capability

40.1/100

field median 49.8#140 of 227 ranked models

Public

#140of 227

Verified —

Price

Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies

input median $0.72No comparable first-party hosted token rate

Speed

Not measured

field median 93.5 tok/sTime to first token not measured

Context

1Mtokens

field median 256,000Maximum output length is tracked separately

Strongest published evidence

Instruction Following ranks #62. A well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.

Validate before choosing

20 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.

Source-linked · 20 displayable benchmark rows

Category score record

Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.

Category scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank #89 of 131Percentile 32ndWeight 22%7 benchmarksVerified
33.0
CodingRank #95 of 152Percentile 38thWeight 20%4 benchmarksVerified
30.6
ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified
48.8
MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured
KnowledgeRank #109 of 187Percentile 42ndWeight 12%3 benchmarksVerified
43.0
MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured
Inst. FollowingRank #62 of 149Percentile 59thWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified
78.2
MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%3 benchmarksVerified
76.4

20 of 726 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100

Coverage details

How much of this is verified

Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.

  1. Agentic7/7 verified
  2. Coding4/4 verified
  3. Reasoning1/1 verified
  4. MultimodalNot measured
  5. Knowledge3/3 verified
  6. MultilingualNot measured
  7. Inst. Following2/2 verified
  8. Math3/3 verified
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

Capability shape

Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.

Spark-X2.6-4B category percentile values

  • Agentic32nd percentile
  • Coding38th percentile
  • ReasoningNot eligible
  • MultimodalNot eligible
  • Knowledge42nd percentile
  • MultilingualNot eligible
  • Instruction following59th percentile
  • MathNot eligible

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. Agentic#89/131
  2. Coding#95/152
  3. ReasoningNot ranked
  4. MultimodalNot ranked
  5. Knowledge#109/187
  6. MultilingualNot ranked
  7. Inst. Following#62/149
  8. MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

Benchmark ledger

Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.

Coding4 rows
Coding benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
SWE-bench ProScore54.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.9%

Gap35.6 behindWeight26% ref. weight
SciCodeScientific Code BenchmarkScore36.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu · 60.1%

Gap23.3 behindWeight10% ref. weight
SWE MultilingualScore64.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9%

Gap29.2 behindWeight5% ref. weight
SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark VerifiedScore62.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96%

Gap33.2 behindWeightDisplay only
Agentic7 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
BrowseCompScore53.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 92.5%

Gap39.4 behindWeight8% ref. weight
MCP AtlasScore62.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark Open · 89.2%

Gap26.8 behindWeight4% ref. weight
BFCL v4Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard v4Score71.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: BTL-3 · 88.5%

Gap16.7 behindWeight3% ref. weight
HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with toolsScore36.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7%

Gap30.8 behindWeight3% ref. weight
τ³-bench resultsτ³-Bench Tool-Agent-User EvaluationScore34.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Mercury 2.5 · 96.0%

Gap61.3 behindWeight2% ref. weight
τ²-bench resultsτ²-Bench Tool-Agent-User EvaluationScore86.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-5.4 · 98.9%

Gap12 behindWeightDisplay only
Claw-EvalScore69.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4%

Gap11.5 behindWeightDisplay only
Reasoning1 row
Reasoning benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
LongBench v2Score53.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 · 67.6%

Gap14.3 behindWeightWeighted 25%
Knowledge3 rows
Knowledge benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without toolsScore17.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 64.4%

Gap46.5 behindWeight7% ref. weight
GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&AScore69.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96%

Gap26.1 behindWeight3% ref. weight
GPQA-DGPQA DiamondScore77.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0%

Gap18.9 behindWeightDisplay only
Inst. Following2 rows
Inst. Following benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
IFBenchInstruction Following BenchmarkScore75.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: MAI-Thinking-1 · 85%

Gap9.2 behindWeightWeighted 70%
IFEvalInstruction-Following EvalScore93.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: LFM2.5-24B-A2B · 96.8%

Gap3.2 behindWeightDisplay only
Math3 rows
Math benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
AIME26AIME 2026Score91.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GLM-5.2 · 99.2%

Gap8 behindWeightWeighted 25%
HMMT Feb 2026Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament February 2026Score81.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 97.1%

Gap15.8 behindWeightWeighted 25%
IMOAnswerBenchScore75.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: dots3-note Preview · 90.9%

Gap15.7 behindWeightDisplay only

Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value

All 20 rows

Lineage

The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.

  1. Oct 19, 2026 · you are here

    Spark-X2.6-4B

    Score 40.1 · Price not listed

4b · 4B

Spec sheet

Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.

Weights model ID
XHToken/Spark-X2.6-4BSparkLLM Spark-X2.6-4B model card
Maximum output
Not sourced yet
Knowledge cutoff
Not sourced yet
Parameters
Not sourced yet
Availability
Hugging Face · self-hosted inferenceSparkLLM Spark-X2.6-4B model card
Cloud regions
Not tracked yet
API capabilities
Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
Prompt caching
Not documented in the pricing recordSparkLLM Spark-X2.6-4B model card
Self-host
Spark-X2.6-4B needs ~24GB VRAM (1× NVIDIA RTX 4090 (24GB)).
Rate limits
Not tracked yet

How to read this profile

The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.

Spark-X2.6-4B ranks #140 of 227 on the public leaderboard with a score of 40.14/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.

Spark-X2.6-4B is a open weight model with a 1M context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.

Open Apache 2.0 BF16 weights on Hugging Face for self-hosted inference (SGLang, vLLM with the Spark plugin, llama.cpp, Ollama, LM Studio, MLX). The card requires trust_remote_code. SparkLLM publishes no first-party hosted endpoint or token price.

SparkLLM (Hugging Face namespace XHToken) published Spark-X2.6-4B as an Apache 2.0, text-only, 4.1B-parameter on-device model with three thinking levels (none, low, high) and a 1,048,576-token context. It keeps the architecture of Spark-X2.5-4B (36 layers, three sliding-window layers to every full-attention layer) and gets its gains from post-training. The provider's results come from a chart on the model card, not a table or report; they are recorded here for the high thinking level the card says it used. The in-house SWebBench and PAgentBench figures, Gaokao 2026, VitaBench 2.0 (edition unconfirmed), Graphwalks, OpenAI-MRCR v2 (needle count and metric unstated) and EnterpriseOps-Gym have no matching catalog lane or an unconfirmed setting and stay unmapped. The tau3-bench figure does not name its domains, and the ClawEval-EN figure is the provider's English-split run rather than the official leaderboard. The row is display-only and outside rankings.

20 of 726 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.

Its strongest eligible category is Instruction Following at #62, while its lowest eligible position is Knowledge at #109. a well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.

Last updated October 20, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Deployment options

Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Spark-X2.6-4B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$298
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

Questions

How does Spark-X2.6-4B perform overall in AI benchmarks?

Spark-X2.6-4B ranks #140 out of 227 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 40.14/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 20 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.

Is Spark-X2.6-4B good for knowledge and understanding?

Spark-X2.6-4B ranks #109 out of 187 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 43/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Spark-X2.6-4B good for coding and programming?

Spark-X2.6-4B ranks #95 out of 152 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 30.6/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Spark-X2.6-4B good for mathematics?

Spark-X2.6-4B has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Spark-X2.6-4B good for reasoning and logic?

Spark-X2.6-4B has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Spark-X2.6-4B good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

Spark-X2.6-4B ranks #89 out of 131 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 33/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Spark-X2.6-4B good for instruction following?

Spark-X2.6-4B ranks #62 out of 149 eligible models for instruction following, with a public category score of 78.2/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Spark-X2.6-4B open source?

Spark-X2.6-4B is an open-weight model from SparkLLM. Its weights can be downloaded for local or hosted deployment, subject to the published license. Open weight does not automatically mean open source: training data and training code may remain private, and commercial restrictions can still apply.

Does Spark-X2.6-4B have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

No. Spark-X2.6-4B currently has 21 source-displayable rows. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.

What is the context window size of Spark-X2.6-4B?

Spark-X2.6-4B has a documented context window of 1M. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.

Watch Spark-X2.6-4B in the weekly brief

Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,600+ readers.

Compare Spark-X2.6-4B with every tracked model971 comparisons