BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelCoding plansLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.1

Full profiles: Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 14 sources

As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Opus 5.5 is ahead of Muse Spark 1.1 on quality (68.9 vs 62.3 on the BenchLeader Index), but Muse Spark 1.1 is 4.0× cheaper at $2.00 vs $8.00 per 1M tokens blended. Claude Opus 5.5 leads in every category we measure both in. Muse Spark 1.1 streams ~2× faster.

Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)

  • Claude Opus 5.5 scores 68.9 on the BenchLeader Index and Muse Spark 1.1 scores 62.3 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Claude Opus 5.5 costs $8.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Muse Spark 1.1 costs $2.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Muse Spark 1.1 streams ~2× faster than Claude Opus 5.5 (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Of the 8 benchmarks both models have, Claude Opus 5.5 leads 7 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • On Arena WebDev, Claude Opus 5.5 is rated 1818 and Muse Spark 1.1 1542 (LMArena, as published by 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Opus 5.5 benchmarks max Anthropic Muse Spark 1.1 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 66 category score; Arena WebDev 1818 vs 1542High
Agents & tool useClaude Opus 5.563 vs 51 category score; APEX-Agents 73.5% vs 31.8%High
MathsClaude Opus 5.574 vs 61 category score; ProofBench 100.0% vs 39.0%High
ReasoningClaude Opus 5.572 vs 68 category scoreMedium
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5.574 vs 70 category score; SimpleQA Verified 72.2% vs 57.8%Medium
Images and other mediaClaude Opus 5.570 vs 64 category scoreMedium
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Muse Spark 1.1 has an Arena rating (65 category score)Not comparable
Lowest costMuse Spark 1.1$2.00 vs $8.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.092 vs $0.320–
Fastest first answerMuse Spark 1.11.7 s (Muse Spark 1.1) vs 380.6 s (Claude Opus 5.5 (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

  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 68.9 vs 62.3.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
  • Muse Spark 1.1 is stronger in human preference, instruction following.
  • Muse Spark 1.1 is 4.0× cheaper ($2.00 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
  • Muse Spark 1.1 streams 1.6× faster (187 vs 115 tokens per second).

At a glance

SpecClaude Opus 5.5Muse Spark 1.1
DeveloperAnthropicMeta
Released22 Sep 20269 Jul 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,048,576
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 1.1
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$4.00 / $20.00 / $0.200$1.25 / $4.25 / $0.150
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 Spark 1.1Leader
Reasoning72.367.8Claude Opus 5.5
Coding80.466.2Claude Opus 5.5
Agents & tools62.751.1Claude Opus 5.5
Maths74.061.4Claude Opus 5.5
Knowledge73.769.8Claude Opus 5.5
Instruction following–70.3not comparable
Human preference–64.5not comparable
Multimodal70.363.6Claude Opus 5.5
Long context67.1–not comparable

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 & toolsMathsKnowledgeMultimodalClaude 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, Multimodal: 70.3Muse Spark 1.1, Reasoning: 67.8Muse Spark 1.1, Coding: 66.2Muse Spark 1.1, Agents & tools: 51.1Muse Spark 1.1, Maths: 61.4Muse Spark 1.1, Knowledge: 69.8Muse Spark 1.1, Multimodal: 63.6

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

ModelIndex

Where sources disagree

Across the 8 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 5.5 leads 7, Muse Spark 1.1 leads 1. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 5.5 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Muse Spark 1.1Leader
BenchLeader Index68.962.3Claude Opus 5.5
Arena Text1506†1491Claude 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 1.1
Blended price per 1M tokens$8.00$2.00
Input / output per 1M$4.00 / $20.00$1.25 / $4.25
Cached input per 1M$0.200$0.150
Price per task: chat reply$0.0076$0.0018
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.060$0.018
Price per task: code edit$0.054$0.014
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.320$0.092
Price per task: structured extraction$0.012$0.0034
Agentic coding session, input mostly cached$0.149$0.043
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/s187 tok/s
Time to first answer380.6 s1.7 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 1.1 scores 62.3 and takes 2 s to its first answer token; Muse Spark 1.1 (xhigh) scores 59.6 in 13 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

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 1.1
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader68.962.3
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader62.751.1
Coding scoreBenchLeader80.466.2
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader73.769.8
Long context scoreBenchLeader67.1–
Maths scoreBenchLeader74.061.4
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader70.363.6
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader72.367.8
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–64.5
Instruction following scoreBenchLeader–70.3
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$8.00$2.00
Output speedBenchLeader115 tok/s187 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader380.6 s1.7 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub90.6%–
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1530†1511
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench92.2%†–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench92.2%87.7%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–89.8%†
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis61.4%46.2%†
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis67.9%–
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI–91.2%†
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize97.5%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize91.7%–
CritPtArtificial Analysis31.7%15.1%†
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis68.0%–
MysteryMechanismVals AI49.5%†–
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub67.0%34.0%†
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub71.0%–
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub68.2%49.9%†
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub98.9%94.4%†
Coding
SciCodeSciCode66.9%58.8%
FrontierCodeCognition54.6%†–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1546†1533
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)18181542
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench87.1%†–
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench89.3%77.2%†
LiveCodeBenchVals AI–85.9%†
IOIVals AI95.1%†–
Show all 160 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Muse Spark 1.1
Coding
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI–82.0%†
SWE-Bench ProScale AI SEAL–61.5%
Code MigrationVals AI66.7%†31.1%†
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI81.0%†–
ProgramBenchVals AI18.5%†0.0%†
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI70.2%†–
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI30.4%†–
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI90.3%†72.2%†
SWE-Bench Pro (private)Scale AI SEAL–61.5%
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL–42.2%†
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL–41.5%†
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub78.9%†–
Surface Evolver BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–52.5%†
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–53.3%
CursorBenchCursor57.8%–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub2147.4†–
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub62.3%–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.6%6.1%†
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–77.9%†
Startrise FrontendStartrise71.1%†–
GameBench 2 OverallDuelLab GameBench 287.6†–
GameBench 2 by reasoning settingDuelLab GameBench 294.8†–
Design Arena WebsiteDesign Arena1325†1267
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%31.8%
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)20-7.9
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench72.8%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench88.4%†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench71.7%58.5%†
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI87.6%†69.3%†
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL85.4%†88.1%
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL59.0%†–
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench–40.5%†
GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised scoreArtificial Analysis68.3%–
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis1866–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis–31.8%†
ITBench SRE (AA)Artificial Analysis38.2%–
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis56.3%–
CUA-benchVals AI14.0%–
CyberBenchVals AI55.4%†–
Finance Agent v2Vals AI58.6%†57.2%†
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI67.8%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI9.2%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI3.8%†20.0%†
Legal Research BenchVals AI50.5%†38.0%†
Robo-benchVals AI14.6%–
SkillsBenchVals AI–59.2%†
SREBenchVals AI33.6%†–
Tax Agent BenchVals AI44.5%†–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI65.2%†–
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI47.1%†–
Time Horizon Index: KSPVals AI91.3%†1.7%†
Arena SearchArena (LMArena)1214†–
GBAEvalEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–7.9%
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs9235.3†6520.5
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis69.5%38.9%†
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis26.2%14.4%†
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey4.2%–
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis1800–
GDPxGDPx by SemiAnalysis12.0%–
Design Arena AgenticDesign Arena1334†1167
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%–
ProofBenchVals AI100.0%39.0%
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench97.1%87.1%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1518†1493
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub72.2%57.8%
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench80.3%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench88.9%†–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench80.3%72.5%†
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis48.1–
MMLU-ProVals AI–88.7%†
LegalBenchVals AI–85.0%†
CorpFinVals AI–71.3%†
TaxEvalVals AI–79.7%†
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL–55.0%
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL47.6%†57.0%
MultiNRCScale AI SEAL–65.6%
BioMysteryBenchVals AI79.3%†–
ClaimBenchVals AI100.0%†–
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI75.9%†56.4%†
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI75.8%†–
MedCodeVals AI49.8%†–
MedScribeVals AI91.4%†88.9%†
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI70.6%†61.3%†
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub71.4%–
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub30.6%15.0%
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%74.3%†
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench65.7%69.6%†
MultiChallengeScale AI SEAL–75.3%
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1519†1473
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1506†1491
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1340†1244
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1517†1443
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1500†1497
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1520†1480
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1324†1292
LiveBench DesignLiveBench83.3%†–
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis87.7%–
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI–86.6%†
MortgageTaxVals AI–66.1%†
SAGEVals AI91.3%†–
VTBScale AI SEAL–44.8%
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub51.2%†–
Code2Video-AAArtificial Analysis1536–
AA-3DArtificial Analysis1202–
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis84.7%77.7%†
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)–1480
MLCRArtificial Analysis27.8%7.2%†
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub168.4†154.9
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench83.4%†–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench83.2%75.3%†
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis59.1–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis57.633.7†
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis350302.7†
Vals IndexVals AI70.1†–
Vals Finance IndexVals AI65.3%†–
Vals RSI IndexVals AI37.3%–
Vals Science IndexVals AI58.6%†–
Vals Multimodal IndexVals AI–66.7%†
Vals Router IndexVals AI64.2%†–
AA Cyber IndexArtificial Analysis28.7–
Safety & honesty
FORTRESSScale AI SEAL5.8%12.4%

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.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.1: 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.
  • Muse Spark 1.1: 2 score revisions.
  • 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).
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 1 score revision.

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

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.1: questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Muse Spark 1.1?
Claude Opus 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 68.9 vs 62.3. 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.
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.1: which is cheaper, and will that change?
Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper today: $2.00 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Spark 1.1 better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in coding (80 vs 66 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1818 for Claude Opus 5.5 against 1542 for Muse Spark 1.1.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 streams ~2× faster (187 vs 115 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Spark 1.1 better for agents and tool use?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in agentic tasks (63 vs 51 on the category index, where 50 is average). On APEX-Agents, the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 73.5% for Claude Opus 5.5 against 31.8% for Muse Spark 1.1.
More questions (4)
Which is better for long documents?
Both take about 1M tokens: Claude Opus 5.5 1,000,000, Muse Spark 1.1 1,048,576.
Which has lower latency?
Muse Spark 1.1 answers first: 1.7 s against 380.6 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.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.1?
Across the 8 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 5.5 leads 7, Muse Spark 1.1 leads 1. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 5.5 ahead.
When was Claude Opus 5.5 released?
Claude Opus 5.5 was released on 22 Sep 2026.