BenchLeader

GPT-5.3-Codex vs Muse Spark 1.3

Full profiles: GPT-5.3-Codex (OpenAI) and Muse Spark 1.3 (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 7 sources

As of 2 Nov 2026, GPT-5.3-Codex and Muse Spark 1.3 are neck and neck on quality (62.9 vs 61.9 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±7.7 margin), and Muse Spark 1.3 is 2.4× cheaper at $2.00 vs $4.81 per 1M tokens blended. Choose GPT-5.3-Codex for agents & tools (80 vs 66); choose Muse Spark 1.3 for multimodal (66 vs 61), where it also streams ~2× faster.

Key facts (as of 2 Nov 2026)

  • GPT-5.3-Codex scores 62.9 on the BenchLeader Index and Muse Spark 1.3 scores 61.9 (BenchLeader, 2 Nov 2026).
  • GPT-5.3-Codex costs $4.81 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 2 Nov 2026).
  • Muse Spark 1.3 costs $2.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 2 Nov 2026).
  • Muse Spark 1.3 streams ~2× faster than GPT-5.3-Codex (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 2 Nov 2026).
  • Of the 8 benchmarks both models have, Muse Spark 1.3 leads 7 (BenchLeader, 2 Nov 2026).

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
CodingEither61 vs 61 category score; IOI 53.8% vs 56.6%Either
Agents & tool useGPT-5.3-Codex80 vs 66 category score; AA-Briefcase v1.1 868 vs 1581High
Long documentsEither67 vs 66 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.3% vs 83.0%Either
Images and other mediaMuse Spark 1.366 vs 61 category scoreMedium
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Muse Spark 1.3 has an Arena rating (69 category score)Not comparable
Lowest costMuse Spark 1.3$2.00 vs $4.81 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.092 vs $0.161–
Fastest first answerMuse Spark 1.346.3 s (Muse Spark 1.3 (max)) vs 64.7 s (GPT-5.3-Codex (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

  • GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh) and Muse Spark 1.3 (max) are neck and neck on quality (62.9 vs 61.9, within the ±7.7 margin).
  • GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, instruction following, long context.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is stronger in multimodal, human preference, knowledge, maths, reasoning.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is 2.4× cheaper ($2.00 vs $4.81 per 1M blended).
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max) streams 1.7× faster (194 vs 114 tokens per second).

At a glance

SpecGPT-5.3-CodexMuse Spark 1.3
DeveloperOpenAIMeta
Released5 Feb 20262 Sep 2026
Context window (tokens)400,0001,048,576
Compared atGPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$1.75 / $14.00 / $0.175$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.

CategoryGPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)Leader
Reasoning–60.6not comparable
Coding60.960.8level
Agents & tools80.065.5GPT-5.3-Codex
Maths–63.1not comparable
Knowledge–58.5not comparable
Instruction following73.5–not comparable
Human preference–68.8not comparable
Multimodal61.165.7Muse Spark 1.3
Long context66.666.4level

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 avg75CodingAgents & toolsLong contextMultimodalGPT-5.3-Codex, Coding: 60.9GPT-5.3-Codex, Agents & tools: 80.0GPT-5.3-Codex, Long context: 66.6GPT-5.3-Codex, Multimodal: 61.1Muse Spark 1.3, Coding: 60.8Muse Spark 1.3, Agents & tools: 65.5Muse Spark 1.3, Long context: 66.4Muse Spark 1.3, Multimodal: 65.7

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

ModelIndex

Where sources disagree

Across the 8 benchmarks both have, GPT-5.3-Codex leads 1, Muse Spark 1.3 leads 7.

Overall indexGPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)Leader
BenchLeader Index62.961.9neck and neck

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.

MeasureGPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
Blended price per 1M tokens$4.81$2.00
Input / output per 1M$1.75 / $14.00$1.25 / $4.25
Cached input per 1M$0.175$0.150
Price per task: chat reply$0.0049$0.0018
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.029$0.018
Price per task: code edit$0.032$0.014
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.161$0.092
Price per task: structured extraction$0.0063$0.0034
Agentic coding session, input mostly cached$0.090$0.043
Cost per benchmark task (AA Index)–$2.39
Output tokens per task (AA Index)–91k
Of which reasoning–55k
Time per task (AA Index)–8 min
Output speed114 tok/s194 tok/s
Time to first answer64.7 s46.3 s
Time to a complete answer69.1 s48.9 s

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh) scores 62.9 and takes 65 s to its first answer token. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) scores 61.9 and takes 46 s to its first answer token; Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) scores 58.5 in 22 s, Muse Spark 1.3 scores 57.8 in 2 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

109 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.

MetricPublisherGPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader62.961.9
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader80.065.5
Coding scoreBenchLeader60.960.8
Instruction following scoreBenchLeader73.5–
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.666.4
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader61.165.7
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–68.8
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader–58.5
Maths scoreBenchLeader–63.1
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader–60.6
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$4.81$2.00
Output speedBenchLeader114 tok/s194 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader64.7 s46.3 s
Context windowBenchLeader400,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Reasoning
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)–1516
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench–89.7%†
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench–89.7%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis91.5%93.5%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis42.5%48.7%
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–33.7%
CritPtArtificial Analysis16.9%24.9%
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis–46.0%
MysteryMechanismVals AI–36.0%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–37.0%
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–25.0%
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–53.9%†
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–96.5%†
BTF-3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–14.1%†
Coding
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub74.8%†–
SciCodeSciCode–58.8%
WeirdMLWeirdML77.9%–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)–1534
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)1407†1656
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench–90.2%†
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench–81.1%†
LiveCodeBenchVals AI87.3%–
IOIVals AI53.8%56.6%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI78.0%–
Code MigrationVals AI–47.4%
Show all 109 benchmarks
MetricPublisherGPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
Coding
ProgramBenchVals AI–2.5%
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI–43.1%
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI–20.5%
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI61.8%85.9%
CursorBenchCursor–41.6%
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub1655.21688.3†
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–25.8%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis–33.3%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–84.3%
Startrise FrontendStartrise–74.7%†
GameBench 2 OverallDuelLab GameBench 2–59.7†
GameBench 2 by reasoning settingDuelLab GameBench 2–70.9†
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–40.6%
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis–23.1%
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench78.4%†14.6%†
APEX-AgentsMercor–47.6%
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)–2.6
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench–25.5%†
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench–30.9%†
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench–64.1%†
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis53.0%–
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis86.0%–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI–79.0%
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL4.3%†66.9%†
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis–50.5%
ITBench SRE (AA)Artificial Analysis–33.2%
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis–37.5%
CUA-benchVals AI–5.8%
CyberBenchVals AI–72.7%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI–60.0%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI–23.8%
Legal Research BenchVals AI–55.3%
SREBenchVals AI–3.8%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI–42.4%
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)Vals AI64.0%†–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI–24.8%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI–10.0%
METR Time HorizonsMETR74.5%†–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs5940.1†–
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis–57.9%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis–26.6%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey–8.9%
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis8681581
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–10.9%
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–74.0%
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–46.3%
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–99.2%†
ProofBenchVals AI–58.0%
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench–96.0%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)–1508
Knowledge
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–79.6%†
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench–68.6%†
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–79.6%†
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis–22.4
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL–59.5%†
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL–61.6%†
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI–67.4%
DrugDiscoveryBenchScale AI SEAL–62.2%†
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–27.6%†
AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracyArtificial Analysis–38.0%
AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis–74.8%
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench–82.8%†
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench–78.0%†
IFBenchArtificial Analysis75.4%–
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)–1483
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)–1495
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)–1464
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)–1493
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)–1496
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)–1308
LiveBench DesignLiveBench–74.8%†
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis78.5%82.0%†
Code2Video-AAArtificial Analysis–1019
AA-3DArtificial Analysis–1033
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis83.3%83.0%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)–1468
MLCRArtificial Analysis–13.9%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–157.4†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench–63.0%†
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench–81.6%†
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis–36.4
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis32.548.1
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis301.3324.5
Vals RSI IndexVals AI–19.6%

Data as of 2026-11-02. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261026-cb69502a12d9 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261026-cb69502a12d9/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.

What changed

  • GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh): 1 new result (AA-Briefcase v1.1).
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): BenchLeader Index 64.5 → 61.8.
  • GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh): 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 5 new results (AA Intelligence Index v5.0, AA Progress Index v1, HLE-Diamond (AA)…); 3 score revisions; cost per task moved from $1.31/M to $2.39/M (81% up).
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): cost per task moved from $3.69/M to $1.31/M (64% down).
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): cost per task moved from $1.60/M to $3.69/M (130% up).
  • 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.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.

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

GPT-5.3-Codex vs Muse Spark 1.3: questions

Is GPT-5.3-Codex better than Muse Spark 1.3?
GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh) and Muse Spark 1.3 (max) are neck and neck on quality (62.9 vs 61.9, within the ±7.7 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 2 Nov 2026, so check the category scores for your use.
GPT-5.3-Codex vs Muse Spark 1.3: which is cheaper, and will that change?
Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper today: $2.00 against $4.81 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is GPT-5.3-Codex or Muse Spark 1.3 better for coding?
They are level in coding (61 vs 61 on the category index). On IOI, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 53.8% for GPT-5.3-Codex against 56.6% for Muse Spark 1.3.
Which is faster, GPT-5.3-Codex or Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 streams ~2× faster (194 vs 114 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
Is GPT-5.3-Codex or Muse Spark 1.3 better for agents and tool use?
GPT-5.3-Codex scores higher in agentic tasks (80 vs 66 on the category index, where 50 is average).
More questions (4)
Which is better for long documents?
They are level on long-context benchmarks (67 vs 66). Muse Spark 1.3 accepts more context: 1,048,576 against 400,000 tokens for GPT-5.3-Codex.
Which has lower latency?
Muse Spark 1.3 answers first: 46.3 s against 64.7 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 GPT-5.3-Codex vs Muse Spark 1.3?
Across the 8 benchmarks both have, GPT-5.3-Codex leads 1, Muse Spark 1.3 leads 7.
When was Muse Spark 1.3 released?
Muse Spark 1.3 was released on 2 Sep 2026.