Data as of October 20, 2026 · How the score is built
Released Oct 19, 20261M contextSparkLLM Spark-X2.6-4B model card
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 | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #89 of 131Percentile 32ndWeight 22%7 benchmarksVerified | 33.0 | 7 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank #95 of 152Percentile 38thWeight 20%4 benchmarksVerified | 30.6 | 4 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified | 48.8 | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| KnowledgeRank #109 of 187Percentile 42ndWeight 12%3 benchmarksVerified | 43.0 | 3 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingRank #62 of 149Percentile 59thWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified | 78.2 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%3 benchmarksVerified | 76.4 | 3 benchmarks | Verified |
20 of 726 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow 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.
- Agentic7/7 verified
- Coding4/4 verified
- Reasoning1/1 verified
- MultimodalNot measured
- Knowledge3/3 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. Following2/2 verified
- Math3/3 verified
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
- Agentic#89/131
- Coding#95/152
- ReasoningNot ranked
- MultimodalNot ranked
- Knowledge#109/187
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. Following#62/149
- MathNot ranked
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
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Pro | Score54.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.9% | Gap35.6 behind | Weight26% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| SciCodeScientific Code Benchmark | Score36.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu · 60.1% | Gap23.3 behind | Weight10% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| SWE Multilingual | Score64.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9% | Gap29.2 behind | Weight5% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score62.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap33.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Agentic7 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BrowseComp | Score53.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 92.5% | Gap39.4 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| MCP Atlas | Score62.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark Open · 89.2% | Gap26.8 behind | Weight4% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| BFCL v4Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard v4 | Score71.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: BTL-3 · 88.5% | Gap16.7 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with tools | Score36.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7% | Gap30.8 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| τ³-bench resultsτ³-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation | Score34.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Mercury 2.5 · 96.0% | Gap61.3 behind | Weight2% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| τ²-bench resultsτ²-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation | Score86.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.4 · 98.9% | Gap12 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Claw-Eval | Score69.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4% | Gap11.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Reasoning1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LongBench v2 | Score53.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 · 67.6% | Gap14.3 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
Knowledge3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without tools | Score17.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 64.4% | Gap46.5 behind | Weight7% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A | Score69.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96% | Gap26.1 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| GPQA-DGPQA Diamond | Score77.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0% | Gap18.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Inst. Following2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFBenchInstruction Following Benchmark | Score75.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: MAI-Thinking-1 · 85% | Gap9.2 behind | WeightWeighted 70% | Provider exact |
| IFEvalInstruction-Following Eval | Score93.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: LFM2.5-24B-A2B · 96.8% | Gap3.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Math3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26AIME 2026 | Score91.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GLM-5.2 · 99.2% | Gap8 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
| HMMT Feb 2026Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament February 2026 | Score81.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 97.1% | Gap15.8 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
| IMOAnswerBench | Score75.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: dots3-note Preview · 90.9% | Gap15.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value
All 20 rowsLineage
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.
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
- Context window
- 1MSparkLLM Spark-X2.6-4B config
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- textSparkLLM Spark-X2.6-4B model card
- Output modalities
- textSparkLLM Spark-X2.6-4B model card
- Parameters
- Not sourced yet
- Availability
- Hugging Face · self-hosted inferenceSparkLLM Spark-X2.6-4B model card
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- activeSparkLLM Spark-X2.6-4B model card
- 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.
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.