Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark
Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 9 sources
As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Fable 5.2 and Muse Spark are neck and neck on quality (69.4 vs 64.2 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±6.7 margin). Claude Fable 5.2 leads in every category we measure both in.
Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores 69.4 on the BenchLeader Index and Muse Spark scores 64.2 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
- Claude Fable 5.2 costs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
- Of the 3 benchmarks both models have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 3 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Fable 5.2 benchmarks 
Muse Spark benchmarks Which to pick for…
The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.
| Use case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Fable 5.2 | 80 vs 65 category score | High |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5.2 | 78 vs 68 category score; Humanity's Last Exam (AA) 74.3% vs 40.7% | High |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5.2 | 82 vs 63 category score | High |
| Long documents | Claude Fable 5.2 | 66 vs 64 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.3% vs 78.0% | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Muse Spark has an Arena rating (68 category score) | Not comparable |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) and Muse Spark are neck and neck on quality (69.4 vs 64.2, within the ±6.7 margin).
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- Muse Spark is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, instruction following, maths, multimodal.
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.2 | Muse Spark |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Meta |
| Released | 9 Nov 2026 | 8 Apr 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 262,144 |
| Compared at | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Spark |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $8.00 / $40.00 / $0.200 | – |
Category by category
Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.
| Category | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Spark | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 78.4 | 67.5 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Coding | 80.2 | 65.2 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Agents & tools | – | 65.0 | not comparable |
| Maths | – | 59.2 | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 81.7 | 63.1 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Instruction following | – | 76.9 | not comparable |
| Human preference | – | 68.2 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | – | 64.2 | not comparable |
| Long context | 66.4 | 63.6 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
On one chart
Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.
Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Agents & tools, Maths, Instruction following, Multimodal, Human preference.
Where sources disagree
Across the 3 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 3, Muse Spark leads 0.
| Overall index | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Spark | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 69.4 | 64.2 | neck and neck |
Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).
Price, speed and latency
List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Spark |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $16.00 | – |
| Input / output per 1M | $8.00 / $40.00 | – / – |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.200 | – |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.015 | – |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.120 | – |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.108 | – |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.640 | – |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.024 | – |
| Agentic coding session, input mostly cached | $0.289 | – |
| Cost per benchmark task (AA Index) | $26.54 | – |
| Output tokens per task (AA Index) | 274k | – |
| Of which reasoning | 193k | – |
| Output speed | 72 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 3.0 s | – |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Fable 5.2 (max) scores 69.4 and takes 3 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5.2 (high) scores 68.9 in 3 s, Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) scores 68.7 in 3 s. Muse Spark scores 64.2. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.
Every benchmark
97 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Spark |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 69.4 | 64.2 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 80.2 | 65.2 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 81.7 | 63.1 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.4 | 63.6 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 78.4 | 67.5 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | – | 65.0 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 68.2 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | – | 76.9 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | – | 59.2 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | – | 64.2 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $16.00 | – |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 72 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 3.0 s | – |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 89.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | Scale AI / CAIS | – | 40.6% |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1506 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 88.8%† | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 88.4% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 74.3% | 40.7% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 80.2% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 89.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 92.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | 94.9% | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 35.4% | 11.3% |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 76.5% | – |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 51.8%† | – |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 51.5% |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1529 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 79.2%† | – |
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 67.7% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 74.4% |
| SWE-Bench Pro | Scale AI SEAL | – | 55.0% |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | 83.3%† | – |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 19.0%† | – |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 62.3%† | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 93.8%† | 19.7% |
| SWE-Bench Pro (private) | Scale AI SEAL | – | 55.0% |
Show all 97 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Spark |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | Scale AI SEAL | – | 24.2% |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | Scale AI SEAL | – | 31.1% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 59.6% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 62.2% |
| Design Arena Website | Design Arena | – | 1258 |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 56.2% | – |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 48.8% | – |
| Agents & tools | |||
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 82.9%† | – |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 86.9%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | – | 45.5% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 91.5% |
| MCP Atlas | Scale AI SEAL | – | 82.2% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1831 | – |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | 69.5%† | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 5.0%† | – |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 46.1%† | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 32.1%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 59.5% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 65.2%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 55.7%† | – |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 76.4% | – |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 24.2% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | 7.2% | – |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1785 | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 73.3% | – |
| Maths | |||
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 88.9% |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | – | 17.0% |
| AIME (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 96.9% |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1468 |
| Knowledge | |||
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 81.5%† | – |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 94.5%† | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 66.8 | – |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | – | 87.3% |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | – | 84.2% |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | – | 65.1% |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | – | 77.7% |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | – | 52.4% |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | – | 52.3% |
| MultiNRC | Scale AI SEAL | – | 59.0% |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | 83.7%† | – |
| CaseLaw v2 | Vals AI | – | 63.1% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 77.4%† | – |
| MedCode | Vals AI | – | 51.3% |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | – | 85.9% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 79.1% | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 40.7% | – |
| HealthBench Professional (AA) | OpenAI | 67.7% | – |
| Instruction following | |||
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 75.9% |
| MultiChallenge | Scale AI SEAL | – | 75.5% |
| TutorBench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 68.5% |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1465 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1489 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1464 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1493 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1475 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1306 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 85.1%† | – |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 80.5% |
| MMMU-Pro (official) | MMMU | – | 80.4%† |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 87.4% |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1271 | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 83.3% | 78.0% |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1467 |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 153.1 |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 84.9%† | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 64.6 | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | – | 31.3 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 289.1 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 71.3† | – |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 63.6%† | – |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | 63.7%† | – |
| Safety & honesty | |||
| FORTRESS | Scale AI SEAL | – | 20.2% |
Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- Muse Spark: BenchLeader Index 64.6 → 64.1.
- Muse Spark: 1 score revision.
- Muse Spark: 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
- Muse Spark: 1 new result (PRBench Legal).
- Muse Spark: 1 new result (SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA).
- Muse Spark: 2 new results (PRBench Legal, MultiNRC).
- Muse Spark: BenchLeader Index 65.1 → 64.6.
- Muse Spark: 1 new result (PRBench Finance).
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Muse Spark vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Muse Spark vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Muse Spark vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Spark
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Fable 5.1
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Muse Spark?
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) and Muse Spark are neck and neck on quality (69.4 vs 64.2, within the ±6.7 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 9 Nov 2026, so check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Fable 5.2 or Muse Spark better for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher in coding (80 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is better for long documents?
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 64). Claude Fable 5.2 accepts more context: 1,000,000 against 262,144 tokens for Muse Spark.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark?
- Across the 3 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 3, Muse Spark leads 0.
- When was Claude Fable 5.2 released?
- Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 9 Nov 2026.