Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark 1.3
Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark 1.3 (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 8 sources
As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead of Muse Spark 1.3 on quality (69.4 vs 61.7 on the BenchLeader Index), but Muse Spark 1.3 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 1.3 streams ~1.5× faster.
Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores 69.4 on the BenchLeader Index and Muse Spark 1.3 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 1.3 costs $2.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
- Muse Spark 1.3 streams ~1.5× faster than Claude Fable 5.2 (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 9 Nov 2026).
- Of the 18 benchmarks both models have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 15 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Fable 5.2 benchmarks 
Muse Spark 1.3 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 61 category score; FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) 48.8% vs 23.1% | High |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5.2 | 78 vs 60 category score; HLE-Diamond (AA) 80.2% vs 33.7% | High |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5.2 | 82 vs 57 category score; AA-Omniscience v1.1 66.8 vs 22.4 | High |
| Long documents | Either | 66 vs 66 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.3% vs 83.0% | Either |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Muse Spark 1.3 has an Arena rating (69 category score) | Not comparable |
| Lowest cost | Muse Spark 1.3 | $2.00 vs $16.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.092 vs $0.640 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Claude Fable 5.2 | 3.0 s (Claude Fable 5.2 (max)) vs 36.1 s (Muse Spark 1.3 (max)) to the first answer token | – |
| 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) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 61.7.
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, maths, multimodal.
- Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is 8.0× cheaper ($2.00 vs $16.00 per 1M blended).
- Muse Spark 1.3 (max) streams 1.7× faster (123 vs 72 tokens per second).
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.2 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Meta |
| Released | 9 Nov 2026 | 2 Sep 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 1,048,576 |
| Compared at | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Spark 1.3 (max) |
| Open weights | No | No |
| 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.
| Category | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Spark 1.3 (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 78.4 | 59.8 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Coding | 80.2 | 60.7 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Agents & tools | – | 65.5 | not comparable |
| Maths | – | 63.1 | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 81.7 | 57.2 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Human preference | – | 69.0 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | – | 65.8 | not comparable |
| Long context | 66.4 | 66.3 | level |
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 18 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 15, Muse Spark 1.3 leads 3. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.
| Overall index | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Spark 1.3 (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 69.4 | 61.7 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | 64.6 | 36.6 | Claude 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.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Spark 1.3 (max) |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | $2.39 |
| Output tokens per task (AA Index) | 274k | 91k |
| Of which reasoning | 193k | 55k |
| Time per task (AA Index) | – | 12 min |
| Output speed | 72 tok/s | 123 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 3.0 s | 36.1 s |
| Time to a complete answer | – | 88.3 s |
Per token is not per task: an average task of Artificial Analysis' Intelligence Index cost $26.54 on Claude Fable 5.2 (max) and $2.39 on Muse Spark 1.3 (max), and Claude Fable 5.2 (max) wrote 3.0× as many output tokens for the same work, which a per-token price hides.
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 1.3 (max) scores 61.7 and takes 36 s to its first answer token; Muse Spark 1.3 scores 59.2 in 4 s, Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) scores 58.1 in 13 s. 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
115 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 1.3 (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 69.4 | 61.7 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 80.2 | 60.7 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 81.7 | 57.2 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.4 | 66.3 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 78.4 | 59.8 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | – | 65.5 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 69.0 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | – | 63.1 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | – | 65.8 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $16.00 | $2.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 72 tok/s | 123 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 3.0 s | 36.1 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1515 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 88.8%† | 89.7%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 89.7%† |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 93.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 74.3% | 48.7% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 80.2% | 33.7% |
| 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% | 24.9% |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 76.5% | 48.0% |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 51.8%† | 36.0% |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 37.0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 25.0% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 53.9%† |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 96.5%† |
| BTF-3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 14.1%† |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 58.8% |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1532 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1654 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 79.2%† | 83.1%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | – | 81.1%† |
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 67.7% | 58.8% |
| IOI | Vals AI | – | 56.6% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | – | 47.4% |
Show all 115 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Spark 1.3 (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | 83.3%† | – |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 19.0%† | 2.5% |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 62.3%† | 43.1% |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | Vals AI | – | 20.5% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 93.8%† | 85.9% |
| CursorBench | Cursor | – | 41.6% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 1688.3† |
| FrontierSWE | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 25.8% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 59.6% | 33.3% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 84.3% |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | – | 74.7%† |
| GameBench 2 Overall | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 57.8† |
| GameBench 2 by reasoning setting | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 68.7† |
| Design Arena Website | Design Arena | – | 1343 |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 56.2% | 40.6% |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 48.8% | 23.1% |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | – | 14.8%† |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | – | 47.6% |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | – | 2.2 |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 82.9%† | 47.9%† |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 86.9%† | 30.9%† |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | – | 64.1%† |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 79.0% |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 66.9%† |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1831 | – |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 50.5% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 33.2% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 37.5% |
| CUA-bench | Vals AI | – | 5.8% |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | – | 72.7% |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | – | 60.0% |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | 69.5%† | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 5.0%† | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 23.8% |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 46.1%† | 55.3% |
| SREBench | Vals AI | – | 3.8% |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 32.1%† | 42.4% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 65.2%† | 24.8% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 55.7%† | 10.0% |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 76.4% | 57.9% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 24.2% | 26.6% |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | 7.2% | 8.9% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1785 | 1581 |
| Design Arena Agentic | Design Arena | – | 1278 |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 73.3% | 10.9% |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 74.0% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 46.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 99.2%† |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | – | 58.0% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | – | 96.0%† |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1507 |
| Knowledge | |||
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 81.5%† | 79.6%† |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 94.5%† | 82.5%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | – | 79.6%† |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 66.8 | 22.4 |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | – | 59.5%† |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | – | 61.6%† |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | 83.7%† | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | – | 67.4% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 77.4%† | – |
| DrugDiscoveryBench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 62.2%† |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 27.6%† |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 79.1% | 38.0% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 40.7% | 74.8% |
| HealthBench Professional (AA) | OpenAI | 67.7% | – |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | – | 82.8%† |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | – | 78.0%† |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1485 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1496 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1467 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1493 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1497 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1309 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 85.1%† | 74.8%† |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 82.0%† |
| Code2Video-AA | Artificial Analysis | – | 1019 |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1271 | 1032 |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 83.3% | 83.0% |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1475 |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | – | 13.9% |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 158.0† |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 84.9%† | 68.4%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | – | 81.6%† |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 64.6 | 36.6 |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | – | 48.1 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 324.5 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 71.3† | – |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 63.6%† | – |
| Vals RSI Index | Vals AI | – | 19.6% |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | 63.7%† | – |
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 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.
- Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.
- Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.
- Muse Spark 1.3 (max): BenchLeader Index 64.5 → 61.8.
- Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 5 new results (AA Intelligence Index v5.0, AA Progress Index v1, HLE-Diamond (AA)…); 3 score revisions; cost per task moved from $1.31/M to $2.39/M (81% up).
- Muse Spark 1.3 (max): cost per task moved from $3.69/M to $1.31/M (64% down).
- Muse Spark 1.3 (max): cost per task moved from $1.60/M to $3.69/M (130% up).
- Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 3 new results (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1, Vals RSI Index, SWE-bench Multimodal); 1 score revision.
- Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.
- Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.
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 1.3 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark 1.2
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark 1.3: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Muse Spark 1.3?
- 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 1.3: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- Muse Spark 1.3 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 1.3 better for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher in coding (80 vs 61 on the category index, where 50 is average). On FrontierCode 2.0 (AA), the top shared coding benchmark, it is 48.8% for Claude Fable 5.2 against 23.1% for Muse Spark 1.3.
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.2 or Muse Spark 1.3?
- Muse Spark 1.3 streams ~1.5× faster (123 vs 72 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
- Which is better for long documents?
- They are level on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 66). Both take about 1M tokens: Claude Fable 5.2 1,000,000, Muse Spark 1.3 1,048,576.
More questions (3)
- Which has lower latency?
- Claude Fable 5.2 answers first: 3.0 s against 36.1 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 1.3?
- Across the 18 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 15, Muse Spark 1.3 leads 3. 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.