BenchLeader

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Muse Spark 1.1

Full profiles: GPT-5.6 Terra (OpenAI) and Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 11 sources

As of 25 Oct 2026, GPT-5.6 Terra (max) and Muse Spark 1.1 are neck and neck on quality (64.4 vs 62.5 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±7.5 margin of error), and Muse Spark 1.1 costs 2.3× less, which makes it the better buy for most workloads. Pick GPT-5.6 Terra for maths (69 vs 61); pick Muse Spark 1.1 for knowledge (69 vs 57).

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 1.166 vs 65 category score; SciCode 58.8% vs 55.0%Medium
Agents & tool useGPT-5.6 Terra59 vs 52 category score; APEX-Agents 58.2% vs 31.8%Medium
MathsGPT-5.6 Terra69 vs 61 category scoreHigh
ReasoningGPT-5.6 Terra70 vs 68 category scoreMedium
KnowledgeMuse Spark 1.169 vs 57 category score; SimpleQA Verified 57.8% vs 43.2%High
Images and other mediaEither64 vs 64 category scoreEither
Following instructionsMuse Spark 1.172 vs 70 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 $4.50 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.092 vs $0.168–
Fastest first answerMuse Spark 1.11.5 s (Muse Spark 1.1) vs 101.0 s (GPT-5.6 Terra (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

  • GPT-5.6 Terra (max) and Muse Spark 1.1 are neck and neck on quality (64.4 vs 62.5, within the ±7.5 margin).
  • GPT-5.6 Terra (max) is stronger in agents & tools, composite, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
  • Muse Spark 1.1 is stronger in coding, instruction following, knowledge, human preference.
  • Muse Spark 1.1 is 2.3× cheaper ($2.00 vs $4.50 per 1M blended).
  • Muse Spark 1.1 streams 1.6× faster (200 vs 126 tokens per second).

At a glance

SpecGPT-5.6 TerraMuse Spark 1.1
DeveloperOpenAIMeta
Released9 Jul 20269 Jul 2026
Context window (tokens)1,050,0001,048,576
Compared atGPT-5.6 Terra (max)Muse Spark 1.1
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$2.00 / $12.00 / $0.200$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-5.6 Terra (max)Muse Spark 1.1Leader
Reasoning70.167.9GPT-5.6 Terra
Coding65.166.3Muse Spark 1.1
Agents & tools58.951.8GPT-5.6 Terra
Maths68.961.3GPT-5.6 Terra
Knowledge57.269.2Muse Spark 1.1
Instruction following69.971.5Muse Spark 1.1
Human preference–65.0not comparable
Multimodal63.763.6level
Long context66.6–not comparable
Composite76.6–not comparable

Where sources disagree

Across the 4 benchmarks both have, GPT-5.6 Terra leads 2, Muse Spark 1.1 leads 2. Independent sources split: GPT-5.6 Terra leads on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2; Muse Spark 1.1 leads on Arena Text.

Overall indexGPT-5.6 Terra (max)Muse Spark 1.1Leader
BenchLeader Index64.462.5neck and neck
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.242.133.7†GPT-5.6 Terra
Arena Text1467†1490Muse Spark 1.1

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.

MeasureGPT-5.6 Terra (max)Muse Spark 1.1
Blended price per 1M tokens$4.50$2.00
Input / output per 1M$2.00 / $12.00$1.25 / $4.25
Cached input per 1M$0.200$0.150
Price per task: chat reply$0.0044$0.0018
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.031$0.018
Price per task: code edit$0.030$0.014
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.168$0.092
Price per task: structured extraction$0.0064$0.0034
Cost to run a full benchmark suite$1.40–
Output speed126 tok/s200 tok/s
Time to first answer101.0 s1.5 s
Time to a complete answer105.0 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. GPT-5.6 Terra (max) scores 64.4 and takes 101 s to its first answer token; GPT-5.6 Terra (xhigh) scores 62.8 in 7 s, GPT-5.6 Terra (high) scores 61.3 in 2 s. Muse Spark 1.1 scores 62.5 and takes 2 s to its first answer token; Muse Spark 1.1 (xhigh) scores 61.6 in 18 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

127 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-5.6 Terra (max)Muse Spark 1.1
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader64.462.5
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader58.951.8
Coding scoreBenchLeader65.166.3
Composite scoreBenchLeader76.6–
Instruction following scoreBenchLeader69.971.5
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader57.269.2
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.6–
Maths scoreBenchLeader68.961.3
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader63.763.6
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader70.167.9
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–65.0
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$4.50$2.00
Output speedBenchLeader126 tok/s200 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader101.0 s1.5 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,050,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub93.3%–
SimpleBenchSimpleBench48.9%†–
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1490†1510
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench90.6%†–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench90.6%87.7%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis92.5%89.8%†
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis42.9%46.2%†
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI90.9%†91.2%†
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi LLM Benchmark51.3%†–
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize96.5%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize83.9%–
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize0.8%–
CritPtArtificial Analysis30.0%15.1%†
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub47.0%34.0%†
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub35.0%–
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub55.0%49.9%†
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub93.3%94.4%†
Coding
SciCodeSciCode55.0%58.8%
WeirdMLWeirdML78.3%†–
FrontierCodeCognition41.3%†–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1518†1533
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)1521†1543
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench86.2%†–
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench78.3%77.2%†
LiveCodeBenchVals AI85.9%†85.9%†
Show all 127 benchmarks
MetricPublisherGPT-5.6 Terra (max)Muse Spark 1.1
Coding
IOIVals AI87.6%–
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI95.4%82.0%†
SWE-Bench ProScale AI SEAL–61.5%
Code MigrationVals AI47.8%31.1%†
ProgramBenchVals AI0.5%0.0%†
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI14.8%–
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI74.6%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%†
Surface Evolver BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub83.8%†52.5%†
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub69.6%53.3%
CursorBenchCursor41.3%–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub1951.4–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis35.4%6.1%†
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis88.0%77.9%†
Startrise FrontendStartrise66.9%†–
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench21.5%–
APEX-AgentsMercor58.2%31.8%
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)0.2†-6.9
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench48.4%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench84.0%†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench55.0%58.5%†
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis57.6%–
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis86.3%–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI77.5%69.3%†
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL–88.1%
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench–40.5%†
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis47.6%–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis40.2%31.8%†
ITBench SRE (AA)Artificial Analysis51.0%–
APEX-Agents (AA)Artificial Analysis38.9%–
CyberBenchVals AI72.1%–
Finance Agent v2Vals AI54.4%57.2%†
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI0.8%20.0%†
Legal Research BenchVals AI41.4%38.0%†
SkillsBenchVals AI58.9%59.2%†
SREBenchVals AI9.5%–
Tax Agent BenchVals AI30.0%–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI22.7%–
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI10.0%–
Time Horizon Index: KSPVals AI–1.7%†
BALROGBALROG53.2%–
GBAEvalEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–7.9%
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs7343.2†6520.5
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis59.6%38.9%†
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis24.0%14.4%†
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis38.5%–
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis13.8%–
FACTS SearchGoogle81.7%†–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub86.0%–
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub70.7%–
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub99.7%–
ProofBenchVals AI74.0%†39.0%
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench94.9%87.1%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1483†1493
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub43.2%57.8%
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench79.3%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench60.4%†–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench79.3%72.5%†
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis0.128.1†
MMLU-ProVals AI86.7%†88.7%†
LegalBenchVals AI85.1%85.0%†
CorpFinVals AI65.3%†71.3%†
TaxEvalVals AI76.2%†79.7%†
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL–55.0%
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL–57.0%
MultiNRCScale AI SEAL–65.6%
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI66.2%56.4%†
MedCodeVals AI43.4%†–
MedScribeVals AI82.9%†88.9%†
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI62.4%61.3%†
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub24.7%†15.0%
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis46.8%52.0%†
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis12.1%50.0%†
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench82.9%74.3%†
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench64.6%69.6%†
IFBenchArtificial Analysis71.2%–
MultiChallengeScale AI SEAL–75.3%
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1464†1472
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1467†1490
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1224†1252
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1429†1443
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1472†1496
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1468†1480
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1271†1293
LiveBench DesignLiveBench76.0%†–
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis80.7%–
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI86.5%86.6%†
MortgageTaxVals AI67.3%†66.1%†
SAGEVals AI47.0%45.6%†
VTBScale AI SEAL–44.8%
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub30.8%†–
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis83.0%77.7%†
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)1477†1480
MLCRArtificial Analysis27.2%7.2%†
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub160.1†154.1
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench75.0%†–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench77.9%75.3%†
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis42.133.7†
Vals Multimodal IndexVals AI65.1%†66.7%†
Safety & honesty
FORTRESSScale AI SEAL–12.4%

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 1.1: 1 score revision.
  • GPT-5.6 Terra (max): 1 new result (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1).
  • Muse Spark 1.1: BenchLeader Index 63.1 → 62.5.
  • GPT-5.6 Terra (max): 1 score revision.
  • GPT-5.6 Terra (max): BenchLeader Index 63.8 → 64.4.
  • GPT-5.6 Terra (max): 5 new results (AutomationBench, GDP.pdf (AA), MLCR…).
  • GPT-5.6 Terra (max): 1 new result (SREBench); 1 score revision.
  • GPT-5.6 Terra (max): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.1: 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.1: 1 new result (PRBench Legal).

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

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Muse Spark 1.1: questions

Is GPT-5.6 Terra better than Muse Spark 1.1?
GPT-5.6 Terra (max) and Muse Spark 1.1 are neck and neck on quality (64.4 vs 62.5, within the ±7.5 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, GPT-5.6 Terra or Muse Spark 1.1, and will that change?
Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper today: $2.00 against $4.50 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is GPT-5.6 Terra better than Muse Spark 1.1 for coding?
Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher in coding (66 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average). On SciCode, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 55.0% for GPT-5.6 Terra against 58.8% for Muse Spark 1.1.
Is GPT-5.6 Terra better than Muse Spark 1.1 for agents and tool use?
GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher in agentic tasks (59 vs 52 on the category index, where 50 is average). On APEX-Agents, the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 58.2% for GPT-5.6 Terra against 31.8% for Muse Spark 1.1.
Which is better for long documents?
Both take about 1.1M tokens: GPT-5.6 Terra 1,050,000, Muse Spark 1.1 1,048,576.
Which has lower latency?
Muse Spark 1.1 answers first: 1.5 s against 101.0 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, GPT-5.6 Terra or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 streams faster: 200 against 126 output tokens per second.
Do independent benchmarks agree on GPT-5.6 Terra vs Muse Spark 1.1?
Across the 4 benchmarks both have, GPT-5.6 Terra leads 2, Muse Spark 1.1 leads 2. Independent sources split: GPT-5.6 Terra leads on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2; Muse Spark 1.1 leads on Arena Text.
When was GPT-5.6 Terra released?
GPT-5.6 Terra was released on 9 Jul 2026.