Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark
Full profiles: Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 11 sources
As of 24 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5 (max) is the better pick for most workloads: it leads on quality (69.3 vs 64.3 on the BenchLeader Index). Pick Claude Fable 5 for knowledge (81 vs 63); pick Muse Spark for instruction following (77 vs 63).
Claude Fable 5 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 | 74 vs 65 category score; SciCode 61.0% vs 51.5% | High |
| Agents & tool use | Muse Spark | 66 vs 65 category score; Terminal-Bench Hard 45.5% vs 62.9% | Medium |
| Maths | Claude Fable 5 | 72 vs 59 category score; OTIS Mock AIME 99.7% vs 88.9% | High |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5 | 74 vs 65 category score; CritPt 28.6% vs 11.3% | High |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5 | 81 vs 63 category score; AA-Omniscience 43.3 vs 7.2 | High |
| Long documents | Claude Fable 5 | 66 vs 64 category score; AA-LCR 82.3% vs 78.0% | Medium |
| Following instructions | Muse Spark | 77 vs 63 category score; IFBench 75.9% vs 63.5% | High |
| 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 (max) leads on quality: 69.3 vs 64.3.
- Claude Fable 5 (max) is stronger in coding, composite, knowledge, long context, maths, reasoning.
- Muse Spark is stronger in agents & tools, instruction following, human preference, multimodal.
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Fable 5 | Muse Spark |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Meta |
| Released | 9 Jun 2026 | 8 Apr 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 262,144 |
| Compared at | Claude Fable 5 (max) | Muse Spark |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 / $1.00 | – |
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 (max) | Muse Spark | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 73.8 | 65.3 | Claude Fable 5 |
| Coding | 73.8 | 65.0 | Claude Fable 5 |
| Agents & tools | 65.0 | 66.1 | Muse Spark |
| Maths | 72.4 | 59.1 | Claude Fable 5 |
| Knowledge | 81.0 | 63.3 | Claude Fable 5 |
| Instruction following | 63.1 | 77.3 | Muse Spark |
| Human preference | – | 68.3 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | – | 64.5 | not comparable |
| Long context | 66.3 | 64.0 | Claude Fable 5 |
| Composite | 85.0 | 64.5 | Claude Fable 5 |
Where sources disagree
Across the 15 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5 leads 13, Muse Spark leads 2. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5 ahead.
| Overall index | Claude Fable 5 (max) | Muse Spark | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 69.3 | 64.3 | Claude Fable 5 |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 49.6 | 31.3 | Claude Fable 5 |
| Arena Text | 1503† | 1489 | Claude Fable 5 |
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; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5 (max) | Muse Spark |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $20.00 | – |
| Input / output per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 | – / – |
| Cached input per 1M | $1.00 | – |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.019 | – |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.150 | – |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.135 | – |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.800 | – |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.030 | – |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $8.75 | – |
| Output speed | 70 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 59.8 s | – |
| Time to a complete answer | 67.0 s | – |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Fable 5 (max) scores 69.3 and takes 60 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5 scores 67.1 in 4 s, Claude Fable 5 (high) scores 64.6 in 4 s. Muse Spark scores 64.3. 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
135 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 (max) | Muse Spark |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 69.3 | 64.3 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 65.0 | 66.1 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 73.8 | 65.0 |
| Composite score | BenchLeader | 85.0 | 64.5 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | 63.1 | 77.3 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 81.0 | 63.3 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.3 | 64.0 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 72.4 | 59.1 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 73.8 | 65.3 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 68.3 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | – | 64.5 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $20.00 | – |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 70 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 59.8 s | – |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 85.9% | 89.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | Scale AI / CAIS | – | 40.6% |
| SimpleBench | SimpleBench | 81.9% | – |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1529† | 1506 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 89.7%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 89.7% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 92.6% | 88.4% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 55.5% | 40.7% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | 93.2%† | 89.7% |
| EnigmaEval | Scale AI SEAL | 39.3%† | – |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8%† | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 98.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 89.2% | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 28.6% | 11.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 47.0% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 52.0% | – |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 60.3% | – |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 98.4% | – |
| ForecastBench | ForecastBench | 66.0% | – |
| BTF-3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 13.0%† | – |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | 61.0% | 51.5% |
| WeirdML | WeirdML | 91.9% | – |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 53.5%† | – |
| GSO-Bench | GSO-Bench | 78.4%† | – |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1551† | 1529 |
Show all 135 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5 (max) | Muse Spark |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1624† | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 98.3%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | 86.0% | – |
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 61.0% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | 89.8%† | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | 95.0%† | 74.4% |
| SWE-Bench Pro | Scale AI SEAL | – | 55.0% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | 55.1%† | – |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 2.0%† | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 90.3%† | 19.7% |
| SWE-Bench Pro (private) | Scale AI SEAL | – | 55.0% |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | Scale AI SEAL | 39.0%† | 24.2% |
| SWE Atlas: Refactoring | Scale AI SEAL | 54.8%† | – |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | Scale AI SEAL | 55.6%† | 31.1% |
| MirrorCode | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 63.9%† | – |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 95.0%† | – |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 69.7% | – |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 2041.3† | – |
| FrontierSWE | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 47.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 42.4% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 84.6% | 62.2% |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | 73.8%† | – |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 44.5% | – |
| Remote Labor Index | Scale AI / CAIS | 15.8%† | – |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | 63.6%† | – |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | 8.3† | – |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 53.2%† | – |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 92.0%† | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | 62.2% | – |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | 62.9% | 45.5% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 98.5% | 91.5% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | 80.5%† | – |
| MCP Atlas | Scale AI SEAL | 83.3%† | 82.2% |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | 56.3%† | – |
| τ³-bench Banking | τ²-bench | 39.7% | – |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 38.1% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 48.8% | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | 56.3%† | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | 11.3%† | – |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 49.5%† | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 38.3%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 59.5% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 41.4%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 15.7%† | – |
| Web Search Index | Vals AI | 46.9%† | – |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | 1229† | – |
| PostTrainBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 41.8% | – |
| GBAEval | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 74.5%† | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | 4966.6 | – |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 54.1% | – |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 24.0% | – |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | Artificial Analysis | 51.1% | – |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1537 | – |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 87.0% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 90.2% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 99.7% | 88.9% |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 95.0% | 17.0% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | 96.0% | – |
| AIME (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 96.9% |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1521† | 1467 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 70.7%† | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 80.5%† | – |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 86.9%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 80.5% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | Artificial Analysis | 43.3 | 7.2 |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | 91.5%† | 87.3% |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | 88.6%† | 84.2% |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | 71.8%† | 65.1% |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | 76.9%† | 77.7% |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | 53.9%† | 52.4% |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | 52.6%† | 52.3% |
| MultiNRC | Scale AI SEAL | – | 59.0% |
| CaseLaw v2 | Vals AI | – | 63.1% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 73.7%† | – |
| MedCode | Vals AI | 56.1%† | 51.3% |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | 88.5%† | 85.9% |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 70.4%† | – |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 39.5% | – |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 29.8% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 65.3% | 49.6% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 36.4% | 15.8% |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | 90.7% | – |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | 75.8% | – |
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | 63.5% | 75.9% |
| MultiChallenge | Scale AI SEAL | – | 75.5% |
| TutorBench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 68.5% |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1508† | 1465 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1503† | 1489 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | 1340† | – |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1501† | 1464 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1517† | 1494 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1522† | 1476 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1325† | 1306 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 84.7%† | – |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 80.5% |
| MMMU-Pro (official) | MMMU | – | 80.4%† |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | 89.3%† | 87.4% |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | 68.9%† | – |
| SAGE | Vals AI | 51.9%† | – |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 38.6%† | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR | Artificial Analysis | 82.3% | 78.0% |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | 1499† | 1467 |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 20.6% | – |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 163.4† | 152.0 |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 83.6%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | 83.0% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 49.6 | 31.3 |
| Vals RSI Index | Vals AI | 24.3% | – |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Vals AI | 74.2%† | – |
| Safety & honesty | |||
| FORTRESS | Scale AI SEAL | – | 20.2% |
Data as of 2026-10-24. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 new result (Vals RSI Index).
- Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 new result (ForecastBench).
- Claude Fable 5 (max): 4 new results (GDPval-AA v2.1, AA-Omniscience: accuracy, AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination…).
- Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 score revision.
- 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: 1 new result (PRBench Finance).
- Claude Fable 5 (max): BenchLeader Index 64.6 → 69.1.
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Wonder Full
- Muse Spark vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Muse Spark vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Muse Spark vs Muse Wonder Full
- Muse Spark vs Claude Fable 5.1
- Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Spark
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than Muse Spark?
- Claude Fable 5 (max) leads on quality: 69.3 vs 64.3. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-24, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than Muse Spark for coding?
- Claude Fable 5 scores higher in coding (74 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average). On SciCode, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 61.0% for Claude Fable 5 against 51.5% for Muse Spark.
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than Muse Spark for agents and tool use?
- Muse Spark scores higher in agentic tasks (66 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Terminal-Bench Hard, the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 62.9% for Claude Fable 5 against 45.5% for Muse Spark.
- Which is better for long documents?
- Claude Fable 5 scores higher on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 64). Claude Fable 5 accepts more context: 1,000,000 against 262,144 tokens for Muse Spark.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark?
- Across the 15 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5 leads 13, Muse Spark leads 2. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5 ahead.
- When was Claude Fable 5 released?
- Claude Fable 5 was released on 9 Jun 2026.