BenchLeader

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2

Full profiles: Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark 1.2 (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 9 sources

As of 25 Oct 2026, Claude Opus 4.6 (high) and Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) are neck and neck on quality (62.7 vs 63.2 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±5.2 margin of error), and Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) costs 5.0× less, which makes it the better buy for most workloads. Pick Claude Opus 4.6 for coding (63 vs 55); pick Muse Spark 1.2 for reasoning (69 vs 66).

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 Opus 4.663 vs 55 category score; Arena WebDev 1546 vs 1533High
MathsMuse Spark 1.267 vs 64 category score; Arena Maths 1491 vs 1517Medium
ReasoningMuse Spark 1.269 vs 66 category score; Arena Hard Prompts 1512 vs 1530Medium
Images and other mediaClaude Opus 4.667 vs 65 category score; Arena Vision 1316 vs 1304Medium
Chat quality (human preference)Claude Opus 4.670 vs 69 on Arena votesMedium
Lowest costMuse Spark 1.2$2.00 vs $10.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.092 vs $0.400–
Fastest first answerClaude Opus 4.61.2 s (Claude Opus 4.6 (high)) vs 17.6 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 Opus 4.6 (high) and Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) are neck and neck on quality (62.7 vs 63.2, within the ±5.2 margin).
  • Claude Opus 4.6 (high) is stronger in coding, human preference, multimodal.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) is stronger in maths, reasoning, agents & tools, composite, knowledge, long context.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) is 5.0× cheaper ($2.00 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) streams 7.9× faster (307 vs 39 tokens per second).

At a glance

SpecClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
DeveloperAnthropicMeta
Released5 Feb 20265 Aug 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,048,576
Compared atClaude Opus 4.6 (high)Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)
Open weightsNoNo
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.

CategoryClaude Opus 4.6 (high)Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)Leader
Reasoning65.569.3Muse Spark 1.2
Coding62.755.1Claude Opus 4.6
Agents & tools–55.4not comparable
Maths63.567.3Muse Spark 1.2
Knowledge–66.7not comparable
Human preference70.068.6Claude Opus 4.6
Multimodal66.665.2Claude Opus 4.6
Long context–64.5not comparable
Composite–73.8not comparable

Where sources disagree

Across the 18 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 4.6 leads 12, Muse Spark 1.2 leads 6. Independent sources split: Claude Opus 4.6 leads on Arena Text; Muse Spark 1.2 leads on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2.

Overall indexClaude Opus 4.6 (high)Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)Leader
BenchLeader Index62.763.2neck and neck
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.226.4†39.6Muse Spark 1.2
Arena Text15031491Claude 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.

MeasureClaude Opus 4.6 (high)Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)
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
Cost to run a full benchmark suite–$0.975
Output speed39 tok/s307 tok/s
Time to first answer1.2 s17.6 s
Time to a complete answer–19.2 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 1.2 (xhigh) scores 63.2 and takes 18 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

148 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 Opus 4.6 (high)Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader62.763.2
Coding scoreBenchLeader62.755.1
Human preference scoreBenchLeader70.068.6
Maths scoreBenchLeader63.567.3
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader66.665.2
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader65.569.3
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader–55.4
Composite scoreBenchLeader–73.8
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader–66.7
Long context scoreBenchLeader–64.5
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$10.00$2.00
Output speedBenchLeader39 tok/s307 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader1.2 s17.6 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub90.5%†–
Humanity's Last ExamScale AI / CAIS19.0%†–
SimpleBenchSimpleBench67.6%†74.5%†
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)15301512
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench–90.0%†
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench88.7%90.0%
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis89.6%†90.4%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis39.9%†45.5%
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI89.7%†–
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi LLM Benchmark72.4%†–
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize94.0%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize69.2%–
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize0.5%†–
CritPtArtificial Analysis12.6%†17.7%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub21.0%†27.0%
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub15.0%†–
CL-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub20.7%†–
CL-bench LifeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub17.0%–
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub55.8%†48.4%
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub91.2%†94.7%
ForecastBenchForecastBench63.4%†–
Coding
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub78.7%†–
SciCodeSciCode–57.4%
WeirdMLWeirdML78.0%60.3%
FrontierCodeCognition26.6%†–
Show all 148 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Opus 4.6 (high)Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)
Coding
GSO-BenchGSO-Bench41.2%–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)15471541
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)15461533
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench–78.2%†
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench78.2%77.5%
LiveCodeBenchVals AI84.7%†–
IOIVals AI–21.8%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI78.2%†86.6%
SWE-Bench ProScale AI SEAL51.9%†–
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)SWE-bench75.6%†–
SWE-bench Verified (any scaffold)SWE-bench75.6%†–
Code MigrationVals AI–29.9%
ProgramBenchVals AI–0.5%
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI57.6%†79.1%
SWE-Bench Pro (private)Scale AI SEAL51.9%†–
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL33.3%†–
SWE Atlas: RefactoringScale AI SEAL35.6%†–
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL36.7%†–
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–54.9%
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub996.5†–
AlgoTuneAlgoTune1.5–
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–12.0%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis–7.1%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–80.2%
Startrise FrontendStartrise–70.3%†
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench79.8%†–
CybenchCybench93.0%†–
Remote Labor IndexScale AI / CAIS4.2%†–
APEX-AgentsMercor46.3%†45.4%†
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)–-7
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench–21.3%†
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench–36.0%†
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench49.0%57.6%
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis46.2%†–
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis92.1%†–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI–69.7%
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL76.8%†–
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL38.3%†–
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench27.3%†–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis–34.9%
APEX-Agents (AA)Artificial Analysis33.0%†–
CyberBenchVals AI–69.5%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI–60.6%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI–25.4%
Legal Research BenchVals AI–43.8%
SkillsBenchVals AI–53.0%
SREBenchVals AI–0.0%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI–32.8%
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)Vals AI58.4%†–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI–6.1%
DeepResearch BenchDeepResearch Bench55.3%–
METR Time HorizonsMETR78.9%†–
GBAEvalEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub44.1%†–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs8017.6†–
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis–40.6%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis–17.4%
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis–47.3%
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis–1327
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub66.0%†–
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub26.8%†–
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub94.4%†–
ProofBenchVals AI50.0%†43.0%†
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench89.3%91.2%
AIME (Vals)Vals AI95.6%†–
AIME 2026MathArena96.7%–
HMMT February 2026MathArena96.2%–
USAMO 2026MathArena47.0%–
MathArena ApexMathArena34.5%–
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)15171491
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub47.0%†60.3%
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–76.5%†
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench–67.7%†
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench69.9%76.5%
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis13.7†27.2
MMLU-ProVals AI89.1%†88.3%
LegalBenchVals AI85.3%†85.3%
CorpFinVals AI67.0%†70.9%
TaxEvalVals AI76.0%†80.4%
MedQAVals AI95.4%†–
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL53.3%†–
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL52.3%†–
MultiNRCScale AI SEAL57.1%†–
BioMysteryBenchVals AI–64.8%
CaseLaw v2Vals AI62.1%†–
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI–57.0%
MedCodeVals AI48.2%†49.4%
MedScribeVals AI86.7%†90.1%
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI–68.5%
DrugDiscoveryBenchScale AI SEAL27.7%†–
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub12.7%†–
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–16.0%
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis47.0%†45.4%
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis37.2%†66.7%
Global-MMLU-Lite (AA)Artificial Analysis92.2%†–
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench83.3%78.6%
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench63.3%74.3%
IFBenchArtificial Analysis53.1%†–
MultiChallengeScale AI SEAL37.1%†–
TutorBenchScale AI SEAL53.7%†–
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)15111472
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)15031491
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1213†–
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)15001439
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)15161511
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)15211488
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)13161304
LiveBench DesignLiveBench–67.1%†
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis75.4%†–
VISTAScale AI SEAL46.1%†–
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI83.9%†86.1%
MortgageTaxVals AI68.5%†65.4%
SAGEVals AI51.6%†47.7%
VTBScale AI SEAL27.5%†–
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis78.0%†79.0%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)1495–
MLCRArtificial Analysis–7.2%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub155.7†155.1†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench–62.4%†
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench74.5%78.0%
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis31.9†39.6
Vals Multimodal IndexVals AI–69.8%†
Safety & honesty
FORTRESSScale AI SEAL13.0%†–
MASKScale AI SEAL85.4%†–

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 1.2 (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.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 (high): BenchLeader Index 60.4 → 62.9.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): BenchLeader Index 62.6 → 63.3.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 (high): 1 new result (USAMO 2026).
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): 4 new results (AutomationBench, GDP.pdf (AA), MLCR…).
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): 3 new results (Chess Puzzles, ProgramBench, SREBench); 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): 3 score revisions.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): 1 score revision.

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

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2: questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Muse Spark 1.2?
Claude Opus 4.6 (high) and Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) are neck and neck on quality (62.7 vs 63.2, within the ±5.2 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 1.2, and will that change?
Muse Spark 1.2 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 1.2 for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in coding (63 vs 55 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 1533 for Muse Spark 1.2.
Which is better for long documents?
Both take about 1M tokens: Claude Opus 4.6 1,000,000, Muse Spark 1.2 1,048,576.
Which has lower latency?
Claude Opus 4.6 (high) answers first: 1.2 s against 17.6 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 1.2?
Muse Spark 1.2 streams faster: 307 against 39 output tokens per second.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2?
Across the 18 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 4.6 leads 12, Muse Spark 1.2 leads 6. Independent sources split: Claude Opus 4.6 leads on Arena Text; Muse Spark 1.2 leads on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2.
When was Muse Spark 1.2 released?
Muse Spark 1.2 was released on 5 Aug 2026.