BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelCoding plansLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases9

Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark Open 816B A42B

Full profiles: Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 9 sources

As of 29 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5 is ahead of Muse Spark Open 816B A42B on quality (66.6 vs 58.5 on the BenchLeader Index), but Muse Spark Open 816B A42B is 10× cheaper at $2.00 vs $20.00 per 1M tokens blended. Claude Fable 5 leads in every category we measure both in.

Key facts (as of 29 Oct 2026)

  • Claude Fable 5 scores 66.6 on the BenchLeader Index and Muse Spark Open 816B A42B scores 58.5 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
  • Claude Fable 5 costs $20.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
  • Muse Spark Open 816B A42B costs $2.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
Claude Fable 5 benchmarks Anthropic Muse Spark Open 816B A42B benchmarks xhigh MetaOpen in the comparison tool

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 570 vs 66 category scoreMedium
ReasoningClaude Fable 580 vs 64 category scoreHigh
KnowledgeClaude Fable 567 vs 62 category scoreMedium
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Claude Fable 5 has an Arena rating (68 category score)Not comparable
Lowest costMuse Spark Open 816B A42B$2.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.092 vs $0.800–
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Claude Fable 5 leads on quality: 66.6 vs 58.5.
  • Claude Fable 5 is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, knowledge, reasoning.
  • Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (xhigh) is stronger in maths.
  • Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (xhigh) is 10× cheaper ($2.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).

At a glance

SpecClaude Fable 5Muse Spark Open 816B A42B
DeveloperAnthropicMeta
Released9 Jun 202615 Oct 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,048,576
Compared atClaude Fable 5Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (xhigh)
Open weightsNoYes
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$10.00 / $50.00 / $1.00$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 5Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (xhigh)Leader
Reasoning80.063.6Claude Fable 5
Coding70.465.5Claude Fable 5
Agents & tools64.2–not comparable
Maths–59.4not comparable
Knowledge66.562.2Claude Fable 5
Human preference67.7–not comparable

Where sources disagree

Across the 0 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5 leads 0, Muse Spark Open 816B A42B leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Fable 5Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (xhigh)Leader
BenchLeader Index66.658.5Claude 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.

MeasureClaude Fable 5Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (xhigh)
Blended price per 1M tokens$20.00$2.00
Input / output per 1M$10.00 / $50.00$1.25 / $4.25
Cached input per 1M$1.00$0.150
Price per task: chat reply$0.019$0.0018
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.150$0.018
Price per task: code edit$0.135$0.014
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.800$0.092
Price per task: structured extraction$0.030$0.0034
Output speed53 tok/s–
Time to first answer3.8 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Fable 5 scores 66.6 and takes 4 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5 (max) scores 65.3 in 70 s, Claude Fable 5 (high) scores 64.5 in 4 s. Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (xhigh) scores 58.5. 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 5Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (xhigh)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader66.658.5
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader64.2–
Coding scoreBenchLeader70.465.5
Human preference scoreBenchLeader67.7–
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader66.562.2
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader80.063.6
Maths scoreBenchLeader–59.4
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$20.00$2.00
Output speedBenchLeader53 tok/s–
Time to first answerBenchLeader3.8 s–
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub85.9%†88.6%
SimpleBenchSimpleBench81.9%†–
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1529†–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench89.7%†–
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis92.6%†–
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis55.5%†–
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI93.2%–
EnigmaEvalScale AI SEAL39.3%†–
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi LLM Benchmark88.8%–
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize98.5%†–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize89.2%†–
CritPtArtificial Analysis28.6%†–
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub47.0%†–
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub52.0%†–
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub60.3%†–
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub98.4%†–
ForecastBenchForecastBench66.0%†–
BTF-3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub13.0%†–
Coding
SciCodeSciCode61.0%†58.5%
WeirdMLWeirdML91.9%†–
FrontierCodeCognition53.5%–
GSO-BenchGSO-Bench78.4%–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1550†–
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)1624†–
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench86.0%†–
Show all 112 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (xhigh)
Coding
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis61.0%†–
LiveCodeBenchVals AI89.8%–
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI95.0%–
Code MigrationVals AI55.1%–
ProgramBenchVals AI2.0%–
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI90.3%–
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL39.0%†–
SWE Atlas: RefactoringScale AI SEAL54.8%†–
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL55.6%†–
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub63.9%†–
Surface Evolver BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub95.0%†–
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub69.7%†–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub2041.3†1590.1
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub47.0%†–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis42.4%†–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis84.6%†–
Startrise FrontendStartrise73.8%–
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench44.5%†–
Remote Labor IndexScale AI / CAIS16.1%–
APEX-AgentsMercor63.6%33.4%†
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)8†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench62.2%†–
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis62.9%†–
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis98.5%†–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI80.5%–
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL83.3%–
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL56.3%–
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench39.7%†–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis38.1%†–
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis48.8%†–
Finance Agent v2Vals AI56.3%–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI11.3%–
Legal Research BenchVals AI49.5%–
Tax Agent BenchVals AI38.3%–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI41.4%–
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI15.7%–
Web Search IndexVals AI46.9%–
Arena SearchArena (LMArena)1229†–
PostTrainBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub41.8%†–
GBAEvalEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub74.5%–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs4529.9–
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis54.1%†–
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis24.0%†–
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis51.1%†–
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis1535†–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub87.0%†69.8%
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub90.2%†31.7%
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub99.7%†98.1%
ProofBenchVals AI95.0%†–
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench96.0%†–
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1521†–
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub70.7%†56.6%
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench80.5%†–
MMLU-ProVals AI91.5%–
LegalBenchVals AI88.6%–
CorpFinVals AI71.8%–
TaxEvalVals AI76.9%–
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL53.9%–
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL52.6%–
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI73.7%–
MedCodeVals AI56.1%–
MedScribeVals AI88.5%–
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI70.4%–
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub39.5%†–
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub30.0%–
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench90.7%†–
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench75.8%†–
IFBenchArtificial Analysis63.5%†–
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1509†–
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1504†–
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1313–
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1501†–
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1516†–
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1522†–
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1325†–
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI89.3%–
MortgageTaxVals AI68.9%–
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub38.6%–
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis82.3%†–
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)1499–
MLCRArtificial Analysis20.6%†–
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub163.1–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench83.0%†–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis49.6†–
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis329.3†–
Vals RSI IndexVals AI24.3%†–
Vals Multimodal IndexVals AI74.2%–

Data as of 2026-10-29. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Claude Fable 5: BenchLeader Index 67.3 → 66.5.
  • Claude Fable 5: 1 score revision.
  • Claude Fable 5: 1 new result (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1).
  • Claude Fable 5: 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (xhigh): BenchLeader Index 57.4 → 58.6.
  • Claude Fable 5: 8 new results (LiveBench 2.0, LiveBench Long Agentic, LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning…).
  • Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (xhigh): 2 new results (SciCode, ALE-Bench).
  • Muse Spark Open 816B A42B (xhigh): first results.
  • Claude Fable 5: 1 new result (Startrise Frontend); 1 score revision.
  • Claude Fable 5: BenchLeader Index 67.8 → 67.3.

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

Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark Open 816B A42B: questions

Is Claude Fable 5 better than Muse Spark Open 816B A42B?
Claude Fable 5 leads on quality: 66.6 vs 58.5. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5 is ahead overall as of 29 Oct 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark Open 816B A42B: which is cheaper, and will that change?
Muse Spark Open 816B A42B is cheaper today: $2.00 against $20.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark Open 816B A42B better for coding?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher in coding (70 vs 66 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is better for long documents?
Both take about 1M tokens: Claude Fable 5 1,000,000, Muse Spark Open 816B A42B 1,048,576.
When was Muse Spark Open 816B A42B released?
Muse Spark Open 816B A42B was released on 15 Oct 2026.