BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelCoding plansLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark 1.2

Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark 1.2 (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 9 sources

As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead of Muse Spark 1.2 on quality (69.4 vs 61.7 on the BenchLeader Index), but Muse Spark 1.2 is 8.0× cheaper at $2.00 vs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended. Claude Fable 5.2 leads in every category we measure both in. Muse Spark 1.2 streams ~2× faster.

Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)

  • Claude Fable 5.2 scores 69.4 on the BenchLeader Index and Muse Spark 1.2 scores 61.7 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Claude Fable 5.2 costs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Muse Spark 1.2 costs $2.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Muse Spark 1.2 streams ~2× faster than Claude Fable 5.2 (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Of the 8 benchmarks both models have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 8 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Fable 5.2 benchmarks max Anthropic Muse Spark 1.2 benchmarks xhigh MetaAdd a third model

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 casePickWhyConfidence
CodingClaude Fable 5.280 vs 55 category score; SciCode (AA) 67.7% vs 57.4%High
ReasoningClaude Fable 5.278 vs 68 category score; Humanity's Last Exam (AA) 74.3% vs 45.5%High
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5.282 vs 65 category scoreHigh
Long documentsClaude Fable 5.266 vs 64 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.3% vs 79.0%Medium
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Muse Spark 1.2 has an Arena rating (69 category score)Not comparable
Lowest costMuse Spark 1.2$2.00 vs $16.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.092 vs $0.640–
Fastest first answerClaude Fable 5.23.0 s (Claude Fable 5.2 (max)) vs 11.0 s (Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)) to the first answer token–
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 61.7.
  • Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, maths, multimodal.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) is 8.0× cheaper ($2.00 vs $16.00 per 1M blended).
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) streams 2.8× faster (204 vs 72 tokens per second).

At a glance

SpecClaude Fable 5.2Muse Spark 1.2
DeveloperAnthropicMeta
Released9 Nov 20265 Aug 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,048,576
Compared atClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$8.00 / $40.00 / $0.200$1.25 / $4.25 / $0.150

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.

CategoryClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)Leader
Reasoning78.468.4Claude Fable 5.2
Coding80.255.0Claude Fable 5.2
Agents & tools–55.5not comparable
Maths–67.4not comparable
Knowledge81.765.0Claude Fable 5.2
Human preference–68.8not comparable
Multimodal–65.3not comparable
Long context66.464.2Claude 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.

2550 avg75ReasoningCodingKnowledgeLong contextClaude Fable 5.2, Reasoning: 78.4Claude Fable 5.2, Coding: 80.2Claude Fable 5.2, Knowledge: 81.7Claude Fable 5.2, Long context: 66.4Muse Spark 1.2, Reasoning: 68.4Muse Spark 1.2, Coding: 55.0Muse Spark 1.2, Knowledge: 65.0Muse Spark 1.2, Long context: 64.2

Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Agents & tools, Maths, Instruction following, Multimodal, Human preference.

ModelIndex

Where sources disagree

Across the 8 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 8, Muse Spark 1.2 leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)Leader
BenchLeader Index69.461.7Claude Fable 5.2

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.

MeasureClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)
Blended price per 1M tokens$16.00$2.00
Input / output per 1M$8.00 / $40.00$1.25 / $4.25
Cached input per 1M$0.200$0.150
Price per task: chat reply$0.015$0.0018
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.120$0.018
Price per task: code edit$0.108$0.014
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.640$0.092
Price per task: structured extraction$0.024$0.0034
Agentic coding session, input mostly cached$0.289$0.043
Cost per benchmark task (AA Index)$26.54–
Output tokens per task (AA Index)274k–
Of which reasoning193k–
Output speed72 tok/s204 tok/s
Time to first answer3.0 s11.0 s
Time to a complete answer–28.5 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 1.2 (xhigh) scores 61.7 and takes 11 s to its first answer token. 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

112 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.

MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader69.461.7
Coding scoreBenchLeader80.255.0
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader81.765.0
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.464.2
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader78.468.4
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader–55.5
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–68.8
Maths scoreBenchLeader–67.4
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader–65.3
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$16.00$2.00
Output speedBenchLeader72 tok/s204 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader3.0 s11.0 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Reasoning
SimpleBenchSimpleBench–74.5%†
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)–1515
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench88.8%†–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench–90.0%
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–90.4%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis74.3%45.5%
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis80.2%–
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize97.5%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize92.5%–
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize94.9%–
CritPtArtificial Analysis35.4%17.7%
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis76.5%–
MysteryMechanismVals AI51.8%†–
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–27.0%
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–48.4%
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–94.7%
Coding
SciCodeSciCode–57.4%
WeirdMLWeirdML–60.3%
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)–1544
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)–1534
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench79.2%†–
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench–77.5%
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis67.7%57.4%
IOIVals AI–21.8%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI–86.6%
Show all 112 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)
Coding
Code MigrationVals AI–29.9%
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI83.3%†–
ProgramBenchVals AI19.0%†0.5%
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI62.3%†–
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI93.8%†79.1%
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–54.9%
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–12.0%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.6%7.1%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–80.2%
Startrise FrontendStartrise–70.3%†
GameBench 2 OverallDuelLab GameBench 2–51.7†
GameBench 2 by reasoning settingDuelLab GameBench 2–57.4
Design Arena WebsiteDesign Arena–1310†
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis56.2%–
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis48.8%–
Agents & tools
APEX-AgentsMercor–45.4%†
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)–-8
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench82.9%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench86.9%†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench–57.6%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI–69.7%
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis1831–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis–34.9%
CyberBenchVals AI–69.5%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI–60.6%
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI69.5%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI5.0%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI–25.4%
Legal Research BenchVals AI46.1%†43.8%
SkillsBenchVals AI–53.0%
SREBenchVals AI–0.0%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI32.1%†32.8%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI65.2%†6.1%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI55.7%†–
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis76.4%40.6%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis24.2%17.4%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey7.2%–
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis–47.3%
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis17851324
Design Arena AgenticDesign Arena–1181†
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis73.3%–
Maths
ProofBenchVals AI–43.0%†
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench–91.2%
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)–1491
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–60.3%
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench81.5%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench94.5%†–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–76.5%
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis66.8–
MMLU-ProVals AI–88.3%
LegalBenchVals AI–85.3%
CorpFinVals AI–70.9%
TaxEvalVals AI–80.4%
BioMysteryBenchVals AI83.7%†64.8%
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI–57.0%
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI77.4%†–
MedCodeVals AI–49.4%
MedScribeVals AI–90.1%
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI–68.5%
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–16.0%
AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracyArtificial Analysis79.1%–
AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis40.7%–
HealthBench Professional (AA)OpenAI67.7%–
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench–78.6%
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench–74.3%
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)–1479
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)–1494
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)–1444
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)–1513
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)–1491
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)–1305
LiveBench DesignLiveBench85.1%†–
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI–86.1%
MortgageTaxVals AI–65.4%
AA-3DArtificial Analysis1271–
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis83.3%79.0%
MLCRArtificial Analysis–7.2%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–155.1†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench84.9%†–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench–78.0%
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis64.6–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis–39.6
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis–309.1
Vals IndexVals AI71.3†–
Vals Finance IndexVals AI63.6%†–
Vals Science IndexVals AI63.7%†–
Vals Multimodal IndexVals AI–69.8%†

Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.

What changed

  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): BenchLeader Index 62.2 → 61.6.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): cost per task moved from $1.29/M to $0.81/M (37% down).
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): cost per task moved from $0.97/M to $1.29/M (32% up).
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): 1 new result (AA-Briefcase v1.1).
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): 1 new result (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1).
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): 2 score revisions.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): 4 new results (AutomationBench, GDP.pdf (AA), MLCR…).

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark 1.2: questions

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Muse Spark 1.2?
Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 61.7. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is ahead overall as of 9 Nov 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark 1.2: which is cheaper, and will that change?
Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper today: $2.00 against $16.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is Claude Fable 5.2 or Muse Spark 1.2 better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher in coding (80 vs 55 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.2 or Muse Spark 1.2?
Muse Spark 1.2 streams ~2× faster (204 vs 72 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
Which is better for long documents?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 64). Both take about 1M tokens: Claude Fable 5.2 1,000,000, Muse Spark 1.2 1,048,576.
More questions (3)
Which has lower latency?
Claude Fable 5.2 answers first: 3.0 s against 11.0 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark 1.2?
Across the 8 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 8, Muse Spark 1.2 leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.
When was Claude Fable 5.2 released?
Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 9 Nov 2026.