BenchLeader

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Muse Spark 1.3

Full profiles: Claude Opus 4.7 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark 1.3 (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 9 sources

As of 24 Oct 2026, Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is the better pick for most workloads: it leads on quality (67.1 vs 63.3 on the BenchLeader Index) and costs 5.0× less. Pick Claude Opus 4.7 for maths (67 vs 63); pick Muse Spark 1.3 for reasoning (77 vs 65).

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
CodingMuse Spark 1.365 vs 61 category score; Arena WebDev 1657 vs 1555Medium
Agents & tool useEither65 vs 66 category score; Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) 68.5% vs 79.0%Either
MathsClaude Opus 4.767 vs 63 category score; Arena Maths 1491 vs 1510Medium
ReasoningMuse Spark 1.377 vs 65 category score; Arena Hard Prompts 1517 vs 1519High
KnowledgeMuse Spark 1.373 vs 62 category score; Excel Modeling Benchmark 67.4% vs 63.7%High
Images and other mediaClaude Opus 4.767 vs 66 category score; Arena Vision 1317 vs 1308Medium
Chat quality (human preference)Either68 vs 69 on Arena votesEither
Lowest costMuse Spark 1.3$2.00 vs $10.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.092 vs $0.400–
Fastest first answerClaude Opus 4.71.2 s (Claude Opus 4.7) vs 90.1 s (Muse Spark 1.3 (max)) 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

  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max) leads on quality: 67.1 vs 63.3.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 is stronger in maths, multimodal.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, knowledge, reasoning, composite, long context.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is 5.0× cheaper ($2.00 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max) streams 1.9× faster (116 vs 60 tokens per second).

At a glance

SpecClaude Opus 4.7Muse Spark 1.3
DeveloperAnthropicMeta
Released16 Apr 20262 Sept 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,048,576
Compared atClaude Opus 4.7Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
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 4.7Muse Spark 1.3 (max)Leader
Reasoning64.877.4Muse Spark 1.3
Coding61.464.5Muse Spark 1.3
Agents & tools65.465.6level
Maths66.763.4Claude Opus 4.7
Knowledge62.372.8Muse Spark 1.3
Human preference68.269.1level
Multimodal66.865.7Claude Opus 4.7
Long context–66.6not comparable
Composite–83.3not comparable

Where sources disagree

Across the 20 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 4.7 leads 8, Muse Spark 1.3 leads 12. Every overall index that rates both puts Muse Spark 1.3 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Opus 4.7Muse Spark 1.3 (max)Leader
BenchLeader Index63.367.1Muse Spark 1.3
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.230.9†48.1Muse Spark 1.3
Arena Text14941496Muse Spark 1.3

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 4.7Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
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–$1.60
Output speed60 tok/s116 tok/s
Time to first answer1.2 s90.1 s
Time to a complete answer–94.4 s

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 63.3 and takes 1 s to its first answer token; Claude Opus 4.7 (max) scores 62.4 in 21 s, Claude Opus 4.7 (high) scores 61.0 in 1 s. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) scores 67.1 and takes 90 s to its first answer token; Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) scores 64.9 in 30 s, Muse Spark 1.3 scores 59.8 in 3 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

140 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 4.7Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader63.367.1
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader65.465.6
Coding scoreBenchLeader61.464.5
Human preference scoreBenchLeader68.269.1
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader62.372.8
Maths scoreBenchLeader66.763.4
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader66.865.7
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader64.877.4
Composite scoreBenchLeader–83.3
Long context scoreBenchLeader–66.6
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$10.00$2.00
Output speedBenchLeader60 tok/s116 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader1.2 s90.1 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub86.4%†–
Humanity's Last ExamScale AI / CAIS36.2%–
SimpleBenchSimpleBench61.7%–
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)15191517
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench–89.7%†
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench87.2%†89.7%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis91.4%†93.5%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis42.3%†48.7%
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI90.2%–
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi LLM Benchmark73.3%–
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize0.2%†–
CritPtArtificial Analysis12.0%†24.9%
MysteryMechanismVals AI–36.0%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub41.0%†37.0%
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub13.0%25.0%
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub52.2%†53.9%†
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub94.7%†96.5%†
ForecastBenchForecastBench63.1%–
BTF-3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–14.1%†
Coding
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub83.5%†–
SciCodeSciCode54.5%†58.8%
WeirdMLWeirdML76.4%–
FrontierCodeCognition38.5%–
GSO-BenchGSO-Bench44.1%–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)15461536
Show all 140 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Opus 4.7Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
Coding
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)15551657
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench–90.2%†
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench82.1%†81.1%†
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis–58.8%
LiveCodeBenchVals AI85.1%–
IOIVals AI–56.6%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI82.0%–
Code MigrationVals AI43.9%47.4%
ProgramBenchVals AI0.0%2.5%
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI–43.1%
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI–20.5%
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI71.0%85.9%
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL40.3%–
SWE Atlas: RefactoringScale AI SEAL48.6%–
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL38.5%–
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub31.1%†–
CursorBenchCursor–41.6%
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub1323.01688.3†
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–25.8%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis–33.3%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis83.2%†84.3%
Startrise FrontendStartrise–74.7%†
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–40.6%
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench80.2%14.6%†
OSWorld-Verified 2.0OSWorld18.2%†–
APEX-AgentsMercor49.2%†47.6%
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)–3.4
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench–40.4%†
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench–80.0%†
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench50.7%†64.1%†
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis51.5%†–
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis88.6%†–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI68.5%79.0%
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL79.1%†–
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL41.7%66.9%†
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench40.2%†–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis34.6%†50.5%
ITBench SRE (AA)Artificial Analysis46.7%†33.2%
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis43.8%†37.5%
CUA-benchVals AI–5.8%
CyberBenchVals AI–72.7%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI51.5%60.0%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI6.7%23.8%
Legal Research BenchVals AI38.5%55.3%
SREBenchVals AI–3.8%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI23.7%42.4%
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)Vals AI68.5%–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI–24.8%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI–10.0%
Arena SearchArena (LMArena)1210–
PostTrainBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub28.6%†–
ExploitBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub26.5%–
GBAEvalEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub43.8%–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs10936.8–
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis–57.9%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis–26.6%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey–8.9%
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis–1581
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–10.9%
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub70.2%†74.0%
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub31.7%†46.3%
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub86.7%†99.2%†
ProofBenchVals AI54.0%†58.0%
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench92.8%†96.0%†
AIME (Vals)Vals AI96.3%–
AIME 2026MathArena95.8%†–
HMMT February 2026MathArena93.9%†–
MathArena ApexMathArena40.6%†–
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)14911510
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub51.7%†–
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–79.6%†
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench–68.6%†
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench78.3%†79.6%†
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis27.3†25
MMLU-ProVals AI89.9%–
LegalBenchVals AI85.3%–
CorpFinVals AI66.1%–
TaxEvalVals AI75.3%–
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL–59.5%†
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL–61.6%†
CaseLaw v2Vals AI68.4%–
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI63.7%67.4%
MedCodeVals AI54.9%–
MedScribeVals AI83.0%–
DrugDiscoveryBenchScale AI SEAL–62.2%†
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub19.1%†–
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub21.0%†27.6%†
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis48.9%†43.6%
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis57.7%†67.1%
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench77.9%†82.8%†
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench66.7%†78.0%†
IFBenchArtificial Analysis58.6%†–
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)14931485
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)14941496
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1311–
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)14821463
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)15141494
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)15081497
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)13171308
LiveBench DesignLiveBench–74.8%†
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis78.8%†82.0%†
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI85.5%–
MortgageTaxVals AI70.3%–
SAGEVals AI56.1%–
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub24.5%–
AA-3DArtificial Analysis–1037
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis78.7%†83.0%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)14941468
MLCRArtificial Analysis–13.9%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub156.8157.2†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench–74.8%†
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench76.5%†81.6%†
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis40.7†48.1
Vals RSI IndexVals AI19.1%†19.6%
Vals Multimodal IndexVals AI67.4%–

Data as of 2026-10-24. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Claude Opus 4.7: 1 new result (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1).
  • 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.
  • Claude Opus 4.7: 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Claude Opus 4.7: 1 score revision.
  • Claude Opus 4.7: 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 2 new results (ProgramBench, SREBench); 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 2 new results (APEX-Agents, FrontierSWE); 1 score revision.
  • Claude Opus 4.7: BenchLeader Index 64.0 → 63.5.

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

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Muse Spark 1.3: questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 (max) leads on quality: 67.1 vs 63.3. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-24, but check the category scores for your use.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Muse Spark 1.3, and will that change?
Muse Spark 1.3 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 4.7 better than Muse Spark 1.3 for coding?
Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher in coding (65 vs 61 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1555 for Claude Opus 4.7 against 1657 for Muse Spark 1.3.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Muse Spark 1.3 for agents and tool use?
They are level in agentic tasks (65 vs 66 on the category index). On Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals), the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 68.5% for Claude Opus 4.7 against 79.0% for Muse Spark 1.3.
Which is better for long documents?
Both take about 1M tokens: Claude Opus 4.7 1,000,000, Muse Spark 1.3 1,048,576.
Which has lower latency?
Claude Opus 4.7 answers first: 1.2 s against 90.1 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.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.7 or Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 streams faster: 116 against 60 output tokens per second.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Opus 4.7 vs Muse Spark 1.3?
Across the 20 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 4.7 leads 8, Muse Spark 1.3 leads 12. Every overall index that rates both puts Muse Spark 1.3 ahead.
When was Muse Spark 1.3 released?
Muse Spark 1.3 was released on 2 Sept 2026.