Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.1
Full profiles: Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 9 sources
As of 25 Oct 2026, Claude Opus 4.6 (high) and Muse Spark 1.1 are neck and neck on quality (62.7 vs 62.5 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±6.1 margin of error), and Muse Spark 1.1 costs 5.0× less, which makes it the better buy for most workloads. Pick Claude Opus 4.6 for human preference (70 vs 65); pick Muse Spark 1.1 for coding (66 vs 63).
Claude Opus 4.6 benchmarks 
Muse Spark 1.1 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 | Muse Spark 1.1 | 66 vs 63 category score; Arena WebDev 1543 vs 1546 | Medium |
| Maths | Claude Opus 4.6 | 64 vs 61 category score; Arena Maths 1517 vs 1493 | Medium |
| Reasoning | Muse Spark 1.1 | 68 vs 66 category score; Arena Hard Prompts 1510 vs 1530 | Medium |
| Images and other media | Claude Opus 4.6 | 67 vs 64 category score; Arena Vision 1316 vs 1293 | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | Claude Opus 4.6 | 70 vs 65 on Arena votes | Medium |
| Lowest cost | Muse Spark 1.1 | $2.00 vs $10.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.092 vs $0.400 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Either | 1.2 s (Claude Opus 4.6 (high)) vs 1.5 s (Muse Spark 1.1) 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 Opus 4.6 (high) and Muse Spark 1.1 are neck and neck on quality (62.7 vs 62.5, within the ±6.1 margin).
- Claude Opus 4.6 (high) is stronger in human preference, maths, multimodal.
- Muse Spark 1.1 is stronger in coding, reasoning, agents & tools, instruction following, knowledge.
- Muse Spark 1.1 is 5.0× cheaper ($2.00 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
- Muse Spark 1.1 streams 5.1× faster (200 vs 39 tokens per second).
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Opus 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Meta |
| Released | 5 Feb 2026 | 9 Jul 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 1,048,576 |
| Compared at | Claude Opus 4.6 (high) | Muse Spark 1.1 |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $5.00 / $25.00 / $0.500 | $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 Opus 4.6 (high) | Muse Spark 1.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 65.5 | 67.9 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
| Coding | 62.7 | 66.3 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
| Agents & tools | – | 51.8 | not comparable |
| Maths | 63.5 | 61.3 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Knowledge | – | 69.2 | not comparable |
| Instruction following | – | 71.5 | not comparable |
| Human preference | 70.0 | 65.0 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Multimodal | 66.6 | 63.6 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
Where sources disagree
Across the 10 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 4.6 leads 10, Muse Spark 1.1 leads 0. Independent sources split: Claude Opus 4.6 leads on Arena Text; Muse Spark 1.1 leads on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2.
| Overall index | Claude Opus 4.6 (high) | Muse Spark 1.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 62.7 | 62.5 | neck and neck |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 26.4† | 33.7 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
| Arena Text | 1503 | 1490 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
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 Opus 4.6 (high) | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $10.00 | $2.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $5.00 / $25.00 | $1.25 / $4.25 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.500 | $0.150 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0095 | $0.0018 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.075 | $0.018 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.068 | $0.014 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.400 | $0.092 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.015 | $0.0034 |
| Output speed | 39 tok/s | 200 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 1.2 s | 1.5 s |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Opus 4.6 (high) scores 62.7 and takes 1 s to its first answer token; Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking) scores 62.5 in 1 s, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 62.5 in 1 s. Muse Spark 1.1 scores 62.5 and takes 2 s to its first answer token; Muse Spark 1.1 (xhigh) scores 61.6 in 18 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
132 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 Opus 4.6 (high) | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 62.7 | 62.5 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 62.7 | 66.3 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 70.0 | 65.0 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 63.5 | 61.3 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 66.6 | 63.6 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 65.5 | 67.9 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | – | 51.8 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | – | 71.5 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | – | 69.2 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $10.00 | $2.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 39 tok/s | 200 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 1.2 s | 1.5 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 90.5%† | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam | Scale AI / CAIS | 19.0%† | – |
| SimpleBench | SimpleBench | 67.6%† | – |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1530 | 1510 |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 88.7% | 87.7%† |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 89.6%† | 89.8%† |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 39.9%† | 46.2%† |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | 89.7%† | 91.2%† |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Kagi LLM Benchmark | 72.4%† | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 94.0% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 69.2% | – |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | 0.5%† | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 12.6%† | 15.1%† |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 21.0%† | 34.0%† |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 15.0%† | – |
| CL-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 20.7%† | – |
| CL-bench Life | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 17.0% | – |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 55.8%† | 49.9%† |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 91.2%† | 94.4%† |
| ForecastBench | ForecastBench | 63.4%† | – |
| Coding | |||
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 78.7%† | – |
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 58.8% |
| WeirdML | WeirdML | 78.0% | – |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 26.6%† | – |
| GSO-Bench | GSO-Bench | 41.2% | – |
Show all 132 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Opus 4.6 (high) | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1547 | 1533 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1546 | 1543 |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | 78.2% | 77.2%† |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | 84.7%† | 85.9%† |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | 78.2%† | 82.0%† |
| SWE-Bench Pro | Scale AI SEAL | 51.9%† | 61.5% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | SWE-bench | 75.6%† | – |
| SWE-bench Verified (any scaffold) | SWE-bench | 75.6%† | – |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | – | 31.1%† |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | – | 0.0%† |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 57.6%† | 72.2%† |
| SWE-Bench Pro (private) | Scale AI SEAL | 51.9%† | 61.5% |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | Scale AI SEAL | 33.3%† | 42.2%† |
| SWE Atlas: Refactoring | Scale AI SEAL | 35.6%† | – |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | Scale AI SEAL | 36.7%† | 41.5%† |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 52.5%† |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 53.3% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 996.5† | – |
| AlgoTune | AlgoTune | 1.5 | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 6.1%† |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 77.9%† |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 79.8%† | – |
| Cybench | Cybench | 93.0%† | – |
| Remote Labor Index | Scale AI / CAIS | 4.2%† | – |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | 46.3%† | 31.8% |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | – | -6.9 |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | 49.0% | 58.5%† |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | 46.2%† | – |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 92.1%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 69.3%† |
| MCP Atlas | Scale AI SEAL | 76.8%† | 88.1% |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | 38.3%† | – |
| τ³-bench Banking | τ²-bench | 27.3%† | 40.5%† |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 31.8%† |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 33.0%† | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | – | 57.2%† |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 20.0%† |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | – | 38.0%† |
| SkillsBench | Vals AI | – | 59.2%† |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 58.4%† | – |
| Time Horizon Index: KSP | Vals AI | – | 1.7%† |
| DeepResearch Bench | DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | – |
| METR Time Horizons | METR | 78.9%† | – |
| GBAEval | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 44.1%† | 7.9% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | 8017.6† | 6520.5 |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 38.9%† |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 14.4%† |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 66.0%† | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 26.8%† | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 94.4%† | – |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 50.0%† | 39.0% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | 89.3% | 87.1%† |
| AIME (Vals) | Vals AI | 95.6%† | – |
| AIME 2026 | MathArena | 96.7% | – |
| HMMT February 2026 | MathArena | 96.2% | – |
| USAMO 2026 | MathArena | 47.0% | – |
| MathArena Apex | MathArena | 34.5% | – |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1517 | 1493 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 47.0%† | 57.8% |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 69.9% | 72.5%† |
| AA-Omniscience | Artificial Analysis | 13.7† | 28.1† |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | 89.1%† | 88.7%† |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | 85.3%† | 85.0%† |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | 67.0%† | 71.3%† |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | 76.0%† | 79.7%† |
| MedQA | Vals AI | 95.4%† | – |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | 53.3%† | 55.0% |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | 52.3%† | 57.0% |
| MultiNRC | Scale AI SEAL | 57.1%† | 65.6% |
| CaseLaw v2 | Vals AI | 62.1%† | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | – | 56.4%† |
| MedCode | Vals AI | 48.2%† | – |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | 86.7%† | 88.9%† |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 61.3%† |
| DrugDiscoveryBench | Scale AI SEAL | 27.7%† | – |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 12.7%† | – |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 15.0% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 47.0%† | 52.0%† |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 37.2%† | 50.0%† |
| Global-MMLU-Lite (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 92.2%† | – |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | 83.3% | 74.3%† |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | 63.3% | 69.6%† |
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | 53.1%† | – |
| MultiChallenge | Scale AI SEAL | 37.1%† | 75.3% |
| TutorBench | Scale AI SEAL | 53.7%† | – |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1511 | 1472 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1503 | 1490 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | 1213† | 1252 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1500 | 1443 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1516 | 1496 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1521 | 1480 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1316 | 1293 |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | 75.4%† | – |
| VISTA | Scale AI SEAL | 46.1%† | – |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | 83.9%† | 86.6%† |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | 68.5%† | 66.1%† |
| SAGE | Vals AI | 51.6%† | 45.6%† |
| VTB | Scale AI SEAL | 27.5%† | 44.8% |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR | Artificial Analysis | 78.0%† | 77.7%† |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | 1495 | 1480 |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | – | 7.2%† |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 155.7† | 154.1 |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | 74.5% | 75.3%† |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 31.9† | 33.7† |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Vals AI | – | 66.7%† |
| Safety & honesty | |||
| FORTRESS | Scale AI SEAL | 13.0%† | 12.4% |
| MASK | Scale AI SEAL | 85.4%† | – |
Data as of 2026-10-25. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- Muse Spark 1.1: 1 score revision.
- Muse Spark 1.1: BenchLeader Index 63.1 → 62.5.
- Claude Opus 4.6 (high): BenchLeader Index 60.4 → 62.9.
- Claude Opus 4.6 (high): 1 new result (USAMO 2026).
- Muse Spark 1.1: 1 score revision.
- Muse Spark 1.1: 1 new result (PRBench Legal).
- Muse Spark 1.1: 1 new result (VTB).
- Muse Spark 1.1: BenchLeader Index 62.5 → 63.1.
- Muse Spark 1.1: 2 new results (PRBench Legal, MultiNRC).
- Muse Spark 1.1: BenchLeader Index 63.0 → 62.5.
Related comparisons
- Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Wonder Full
- Muse Spark 1.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Muse Spark 1.1 vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Muse Spark 1.1 vs Muse Wonder Full
- Muse Spark 1.1 vs Claude Fable 5.1
- Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.1: questions
- Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Muse Spark 1.1?
- Claude Opus 4.6 (high) and Muse Spark 1.1 are neck and neck on quality (62.7 vs 62.5, within the ±6.1 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 2026-10-25, so check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Muse Spark 1.1, and will that change?
- Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper today: $2.00 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Muse Spark 1.1 for coding?
- Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher in coding (66 vs 63 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1546 for Claude Opus 4.6 against 1543 for Muse Spark 1.1.
- Which is better for long documents?
- Both take about 1M tokens: Claude Opus 4.6 1,000,000, Muse Spark 1.1 1,048,576.
- Which has lower latency?
- Claude Opus 4.6 (high) answers first: 1.2 s against 1.5 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.
- Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or Muse Spark 1.1?
- Muse Spark 1.1 streams faster: 200 against 39 output tokens per second.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.1?
- Across the 10 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 4.6 leads 10, Muse Spark 1.1 leads 0. Independent sources split: Claude Opus 4.6 leads on Arena Text; Muse Spark 1.1 leads on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2.
- When was Muse Spark 1.1 released?
- Muse Spark 1.1 was released on 9 Jul 2026.