Kimi K3.1 Pro Together vs Muse Spark 1.1
Full profiles: Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (Moonshot AI) and Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 7 sources
As of 9 Nov 2026, Kimi K3.1 Pro Together and Muse Spark 1.1 are neck and neck on quality (60.5 vs 62.3 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±6.0 margin). Choose Kimi K3.1 Pro Together for maths (66 vs 61); choose Muse Spark 1.1 for knowledge (70 vs 68).
Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together scores 60.5 on the BenchLeader Index and Muse Spark 1.1 scores 62.3 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
- Muse Spark 1.1 costs $2.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
- Of the 1 benchmarks both models have, Kimi K3.1 Pro Together leads 1 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Kimi K3.1 Pro Together benchmarks 
Muse Spark 1.1 benchmarks 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 case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maths | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together | 66 vs 61 category score | Medium |
| Reasoning | Either | 67 vs 68 category score | Either |
| Knowledge | Muse Spark 1.1 | 70 vs 68 category score; SimpleQA Verified 57.8% vs 62.2% | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Muse Spark 1.1 has an Arena rating (65 category score) | Not comparable |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) and Muse Spark 1.1 are neck and neck on quality (60.5 vs 62.3, within the ±6.0 margin).
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) is stronger in maths.
- Muse Spark 1.1 is stronger in knowledge, reasoning, agents & tools, coding, human preference, instruction following, multimodal.
At a glance
| Spec | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Moonshot AI | Meta |
| Released | 23 Oct 2026 | 9 Jul 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | – | 1,048,576 |
| Compared at | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) | Muse Spark 1.1 |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | – | $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.
| Category | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) | Muse Spark 1.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 67.1 | 67.8 | level |
| Coding | – | 66.2 | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | – | 51.1 | not comparable |
| Maths | 65.8 | 61.4 | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together |
| Knowledge | 67.6 | 69.8 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
| Instruction following | – | 70.3 | not comparable |
| Human preference | – | 64.5 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | – | 63.6 | 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.
Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Coding, Agents & tools, Instruction following, Long context, Multimodal, Human preference.
Where sources disagree
Across the 1 benchmarks both have, Kimi K3.1 Pro Together leads 1, Muse Spark 1.1 leads 0.
| Overall index | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) | Muse Spark 1.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 60.5 | 62.3 | neck 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.
| Measure | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | – | $2.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | – / – | $1.25 / $4.25 |
| Cached input per 1M | – | $0.150 |
| Price per task: chat reply | – | $0.0018 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | – | $0.018 |
| Price per task: code edit | – | $0.014 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | – | $0.092 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | – | $0.0034 |
| Agentic coding session, input mostly cached | – | $0.043 |
| Output speed | – | 187 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | – | 1.7 s |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) scores 60.5. 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
87 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.
| Metric | Publisher | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 60.5 | 62.3 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 67.6 | 69.8 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 65.8 | 61.4 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 67.1 | 67.8 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | – | 51.1 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | – | 66.2 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 64.5 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | – | 70.3 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | – | 63.6 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | – | $2.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | – | 187 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | – | 1.7 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | – | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 94.2% | – |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1511 |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 87.7%† |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 89.8%† |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 46.2%† |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 91.2%† |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | – | 15.1%† |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 45.0% | 34.0%† |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 42.0% | – |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 49.9%† |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 94.4%† |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 58.8% |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1533 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1542 |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | – | 77.2%† |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | – | 85.9%† |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 82.0%† |
| SWE-Bench Pro | Scale AI SEAL | – | 61.5% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | – | 31.1%† |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | – | 0.0%† |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 72.2%† |
| SWE-Bench Pro (private) | Scale AI SEAL | – | 61.5% |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | Scale AI SEAL | – | 42.2%† |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | Scale AI SEAL | – | 41.5%† |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 52.5%† |
Show all 87 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| DeepSWE v1.1 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 53.3% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 6.1%† |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 77.9%† |
| Design Arena Website | Design Arena | – | 1267 |
| Agents & tools | |||
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | – | 31.8% |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | – | -7.9 |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | – | 58.5%† |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 69.3%† |
| MCP Atlas | Scale AI SEAL | – | 88.1% |
| τ³-bench Banking | τ²-bench | – | 40.5%† |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 31.8%† |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | – | 57.2%† |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 20.0%† |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | – | 38.0%† |
| SkillsBench | Vals AI | – | 59.2%† |
| Time Horizon Index: KSP | Vals AI | – | 1.7%† |
| GBAEval | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 7.9% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | – | 6520.5 |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 38.9%† |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 14.4%† |
| Design Arena Agentic | Design Arena | – | 1167 |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 78.3% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 65.8% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 100.0% | – |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | – | 39.0% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | – | 87.1%† |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1493 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 62.2% | 57.8% |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | – | 72.5%† |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | – | 88.7%† |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | – | 85.0%† |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | – | 71.3%† |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | – | 79.7%† |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | – | 55.0% |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | – | 57.0% |
| MultiNRC | Scale AI SEAL | – | 65.6% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | – | 56.4%† |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | – | 88.9%† |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 61.3%† |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 15.0% |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | – | 74.3%† |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | – | 69.6%† |
| MultiChallenge | Scale AI SEAL | – | 75.3% |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1473 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1491 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | – | 1244 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1443 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1497 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1480 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1292 |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 86.6%† |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | – | 66.1%† |
| VTB | Scale AI SEAL | – | 44.8% |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 77.7%† |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1480 |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | – | 7.2%† |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 154.9 |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | – | 75.3%† |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | – | 33.7† |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 302.7† |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Vals AI | – | 66.7%† |
| Safety & honesty | |||
| FORTRESS | Scale AI SEAL | – | 12.4% |
Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max): first results.
- Muse Spark 1.1: 1 score revision.
- Muse Spark 1.1: 2 score revisions.
- Muse Spark 1.1: 1 score revision.
- Muse Spark 1.1: BenchLeader Index 63.1 → 62.5.
- Muse Spark 1.1: 1 score revision.
- Muse Spark 1.1: 1 new result (PRBench Legal).
- Muse Spark 1.1: 1 new result (VTB).
- Muse Spark 1.1: BenchLeader Index 62.5 → 63.1.
- Muse Spark 1.1: 2 new results (PRBench Legal, MultiNRC).
Related comparisons
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Muse Spark 1.1 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Muse Spark 1.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Muse Spark 1.1 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Muse Spark 1.1 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Kimi K3 vs Muse Spark 1.1
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Kimi K3.1 Pro Together vs Muse Spark 1.1: questions
- Is Kimi K3.1 Pro Together better than Muse Spark 1.1?
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) and Muse Spark 1.1 are neck and neck on quality (60.5 vs 62.3, within the ±6.0 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 9 Nov 2026, so check the category scores for your use.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Kimi K3.1 Pro Together vs Muse Spark 1.1?
- Across the 1 benchmarks both have, Kimi K3.1 Pro Together leads 1, Muse Spark 1.1 leads 0.
- When was Kimi K3.1 Pro Together released?
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together was released on 23 Oct 2026.