BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelCoding plansLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark

Full profiles: Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 13 sources

As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Opus 5.5 is ahead of Muse Spark on quality (68.9 vs 64.2 on the BenchLeader Index). Choose Claude Opus 5.5 for coding (80 vs 65), maths (74 vs 59), and knowledge (74 vs 63); choose Muse Spark for agents & tools (65 vs 63).

Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)

  • Claude Opus 5.5 scores 68.9 on the BenchLeader Index and Muse Spark scores 64.2 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Claude Opus 5.5 costs $8.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Of the 10 benchmarks both models have, Claude Opus 5.5 leads 9 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Opus 5.5 benchmarks max Anthropic Muse Spark benchmarks MetaAdd a third model

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 5.580 vs 65 category score; SciCode 66.9% vs 51.5%High
Agents & tool useMuse Spark65 vs 63 category scoreMedium
MathsClaude Opus 5.574 vs 59 category score; OTIS Mock AIME 100.0% vs 88.9%High
ReasoningClaude Opus 5.572 vs 68 category score; GPQA Diamond 90.6% vs 89.8%Medium
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5.574 vs 63 category scoreHigh
Long documentsClaude Opus 5.567 vs 64 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 84.7% vs 78.0%Medium
Images and other mediaClaude Opus 5.570 vs 64 category score; MMMU-Pro 87.7% vs 80.5%Medium
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Muse Spark has an Arena rating (68 category score)Not comparable
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 68.9 vs 64.2.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
  • Muse Spark is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, instruction following.

At a glance

SpecClaude Opus 5.5Muse Spark
DeveloperAnthropicMeta
Released22 Sep 20268 Apr 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,000262,144
Max output (tokens)128,000 (up to 300K on the Message Batches API (beta))–
Input typestext, image–
Reasoning effort settingslow, medium, high, xhigh, max–
Compared atClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Muse Spark
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$4.00 / $20.00 / $0.200–
API model IDclaude-opus-5-5–
Where to use itClaude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry–

Limits, availability and announced prices from the vendors' own pages: platform.claude.com (checked 20 Oct 2026). Everything else is from the day's data.

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 5.5 (max)Muse SparkLeader
Reasoning72.367.5Claude Opus 5.5
Coding80.465.2Claude Opus 5.5
Agents & tools62.765.0Muse Spark
Maths74.059.2Claude Opus 5.5
Knowledge73.763.1Claude Opus 5.5
Instruction following–76.9not comparable
Human preference–68.2not comparable
Multimodal70.364.2Claude Opus 5.5
Long context67.163.6Claude Opus 5.5

On one chart

Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.

2550 avg75ReasoningCodingAgents & toolsMathsKnowledgeLong contextMultimodalClaude Opus 5.5, Reasoning: 72.3Claude Opus 5.5, Coding: 80.4Claude Opus 5.5, Agents & tools: 62.7Claude Opus 5.5, Maths: 74.0Claude Opus 5.5, Knowledge: 73.7Claude Opus 5.5, Long context: 67.1Claude Opus 5.5, Multimodal: 70.3Muse Spark, Reasoning: 67.5Muse Spark, Coding: 65.2Muse Spark, Agents & tools: 65.0Muse Spark, Maths: 59.2Muse Spark, Knowledge: 63.1Muse Spark, Long context: 63.6Muse Spark, Multimodal: 64.2

Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Instruction following, Human preference.

ModelIndex

Where sources disagree

Across the 10 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 5.5 leads 9, Muse Spark leads 1. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 5.5 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Muse SparkLeader
BenchLeader Index68.964.2Claude Opus 5.5
Arena Text1506†1489Claude Opus 5.5

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. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.

MeasureClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Muse Spark
Blended price per 1M tokens$8.00–
Input / output per 1M$4.00 / $20.00– / –
Cached input per 1M$0.200–
Price per task: chat reply$0.0076–
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.060–
Price per task: code edit$0.054–
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.320–
Price per task: structured extraction$0.012–
Agentic coding session, input mostly cached$0.149–
Cost per benchmark task (AA Index)$10.04–
Output tokens per task (AA Index)173k–
Of which reasoning120k–
Time per task (AA Index)25 min–
Output speed115 tok/s–
Time to first answer380.6 s–
Time to a complete answer771.1 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Opus 5.5 (max) scores 68.9 and takes 381 s to its first answer token; Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) scores 65.5 in 84 s, Claude Opus 5.5 (high) scores 65.4 in 28 s. Muse Spark scores 64.2. 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

160 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 5.5 (max)Muse Spark
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader68.964.2
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader62.765.0
Coding scoreBenchLeader80.465.2
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader73.763.1
Long context scoreBenchLeader67.163.6
Maths scoreBenchLeader74.059.2
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader70.364.2
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader72.367.5
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–68.2
Instruction following scoreBenchLeader–76.9
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$8.00–
Output speedBenchLeader115 tok/s–
Time to first answerBenchLeader380.6 s–
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens262,144 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub90.6%89.8%
Humanity's Last ExamScale AI / CAIS–40.6%
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1530†1506
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench92.2%†–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench92.2%–
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–88.4%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis61.4%40.7%
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis67.9%–
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI–89.7%
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize97.5%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize91.7%–
CritPtArtificial Analysis31.7%11.3%
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis68.0%–
MysteryMechanismVals AI49.5%†–
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub67.0%–
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub71.0%–
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub68.2%–
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub98.9%–
Coding
SciCodeSciCode66.9%51.5%
FrontierCodeCognition54.6%†–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1546†1529
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)1818–
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench87.1%†–
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench89.3%–
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis66.9%–
Show all 160 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Muse Spark
Coding
IOIVals AI95.1%†–
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI–74.4%
SWE-Bench ProScale AI SEAL–55.0%
Code MigrationVals AI66.7%†–
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI81.0%†–
ProgramBenchVals AI18.5%†–
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI70.2%†–
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI30.4%†–
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI90.3%†19.7%
SWE-Bench Pro (private)Scale AI SEAL–55.0%
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL–24.2%
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL–31.1%
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub78.9%†–
CursorBenchCursor57.8%–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub2147.4†–
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub62.3%–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.6%–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–62.2%
Startrise FrontendStartrise71.1%†–
GameBench 2 OverallDuelLab GameBench 287.6†–
GameBench 2 by reasoning settingDuelLab GameBench 294.8†–
Design Arena WebsiteDesign Arena1325†1258
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis52.2%–
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis46.4%–
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench65.8%–
Remote Labor IndexScale AI / CAIS21.3%†–
APEX-AgentsMercor73.5%–
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)20–
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench72.8%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench88.4%†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench71.7%–
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis–45.5%
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis–91.5%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI87.6%†–
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL85.4%†82.2%
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL59.0%†–
GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised scoreArtificial Analysis68.3%–
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis1866–
ITBench SRE (AA)Artificial Analysis38.2%–
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis56.3%–
CUA-benchVals AI14.0%–
CyberBenchVals AI55.4%†–
Finance Agent v2Vals AI58.6%†–
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI67.8%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI9.2%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI3.8%†–
Legal Research BenchVals AI50.5%†–
Robo-benchVals AI14.6%–
SREBenchVals AI33.6%†–
Tax Agent BenchVals AI44.5%†–
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)Vals AI–59.5%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI65.2%†–
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI47.1%†–
Time Horizon Index: KSPVals AI91.3%†–
Arena SearchArena (LMArena)1214†–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs9235.3†–
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis69.5%–
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis26.2%–
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey4.2%–
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis1800–
GDPxGDPx by SemiAnalysis12.0%–
Design Arena AgenticDesign Arena1334†–
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.0%–
CWE-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis58.3%–
DeepSec-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis26.9%–
CyberGym end-to-end (AA)Artificial Analysis0.8%–
FACTS SearchGoogle88.4%†–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub91.2%–
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub95.0%–
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub100.0%88.9%
ProofBenchVals AI100.0%17.0%
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench97.1%–
AIME (Vals)Vals AI–96.9%
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1518†1468
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub72.2%–
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench80.3%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench88.9%†–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench80.3%–
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis48.1–
MMLU-ProVals AI–87.3%
LegalBenchVals AI–84.2%
CorpFinVals AI–65.1%
TaxEvalVals AI–77.7%
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL–52.4%
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL47.6%†52.3%
MultiNRCScale AI SEAL–59.0%
BioMysteryBenchVals AI79.3%†–
CaseLaw v2Vals AI–63.1%
ClaimBenchVals AI100.0%†–
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI75.9%†–
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI75.8%†–
MedCodeVals AI49.8%†51.3%
MedScribeVals AI91.4%†85.9%
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI70.6%†–
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub71.4%–
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub30.6%–
AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracyArtificial Analysis65.5%–
AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis49.7%–
HealthBench Professional (AA)OpenAI59.9%–
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench86.3%–
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench65.7%–
IFBenchArtificial Analysis–75.9%
MultiChallengeScale AI SEAL–75.5%
TutorBenchScale AI SEAL–68.5%
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1519†1465
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1506†1489
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1340†–
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1517†1464
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1500†1493
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1520†1475
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1324†1306
LiveBench DesignLiveBench83.3%†–
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis87.7%80.5%
MMMU-Pro (official)MMMU–80.4%†
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI–87.4%
SAGEVals AI91.3%†–
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub51.2%†–
Code2Video-AAArtificial Analysis1536–
AA-3DArtificial Analysis1202–
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis84.7%78.0%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)–1467
MLCRArtificial Analysis27.8%–
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub168.4†153.1
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench83.4%†–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench83.2%–
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis59.1–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis57.631.3
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis350289.1
Vals IndexVals AI70.1†–
Vals Finance IndexVals AI65.3%†–
Vals RSI IndexVals AI37.3%–
Vals Science IndexVals AI58.6%†–
Vals Router IndexVals AI64.2%†–
AA Cyber IndexArtificial Analysis28.7–
Safety & honesty
FORTRESSScale AI SEAL5.8%20.2%

Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.

What changed

  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 2 score revisions.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark: BenchLeader Index 64.6 → 64.1.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark: 1 score revision.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 2 score revisions.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 2 score revisions.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 5 new results (AA Intelligence Index v5.0, AA Progress Index v1, HLE-Diamond (AA)…); 3 score revisions; cost per task moved from $5.98/M to $10.04/M (68% up).
  • Muse Spark: 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).

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

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark: questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Muse Spark?
Claude Opus 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 68.9 vs 64.2. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 5.5 (max) is ahead overall as of 9 Nov 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Spark better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in coding (80 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average). On SciCode, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 66.9% for Claude Opus 5.5 against 51.5% for Muse Spark.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Spark better for agents and tool use?
Muse Spark scores higher in agentic tasks (65 vs 63 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is better for long documents?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on long-context benchmarks (67 vs 64). Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1,000,000 against 262,144 tokens for Muse Spark.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark?
Across the 10 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 5.5 leads 9, Muse Spark leads 1. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 5.5 ahead.
More questions (1)
When was Claude Opus 5.5 released?
Claude Opus 5.5 was released on 22 Sep 2026.