BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelCoding plansLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Kimi K3.1 Pro Together vs Muse Spark 1.3

Full profiles: Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (Moonshot AI) and Muse Spark 1.3 (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 7 sources

As of 9 Nov 2026, Kimi K3.1 Pro Together and Muse Spark 1.3 are neck and neck on quality (60.5 vs 61.7 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±4.1 margin). Kimi K3.1 Pro Together leads in every category we measure both in.

Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)

  • Kimi K3.1 Pro Together scores 60.5 on the BenchLeader Index and Muse Spark 1.3 scores 61.7 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Muse Spark 1.3 costs $2.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Of the 4 benchmarks both models have, Kimi K3.1 Pro Together leads 4 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Kimi K3.1 Pro Together benchmarks max Moonshot AI Muse Spark 1.3 benchmarks max 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
MathsKimi K3.1 Pro Together66 vs 63 category score; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 78.3% vs 74.0%Medium
ReasoningKimi K3.1 Pro Together67 vs 60 category score; Chess Puzzles 45.0% vs 37.0%Medium
KnowledgeKimi K3.1 Pro Together68 vs 57 category scoreHigh
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Muse Spark 1.3 has an Arena rating (69 category score)Not comparable
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) and Muse Spark 1.3 (max) are neck and neck on quality (60.5 vs 61.7, within the ±4.1 margin).
  • Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) is stronger in knowledge, maths, reasoning.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, long context, multimodal.

At a glance

SpecKimi K3.1 Pro TogetherMuse Spark 1.3
DeveloperMoonshot AIMeta
Released23 Oct 20262 Sep 2026
Context window (tokens)–1,048,576
Compared atKimi K3.1 Pro Together (max)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
Open weightsNoNo
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.

CategoryKimi K3.1 Pro Together (max)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)Leader
Reasoning67.159.8Kimi K3.1 Pro Together
Coding–60.7not comparable
Agents & tools–65.5not comparable
Maths65.863.1Kimi K3.1 Pro Together
Knowledge67.657.2Kimi K3.1 Pro Together
Human preference–69.0not comparable
Multimodal–65.8not comparable
Long context–66.3not 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 avg75ReasoningMathsKnowledgeKimi K3.1 Pro Together, Reasoning: 67.1Kimi K3.1 Pro Together, Maths: 65.8Kimi K3.1 Pro Together, Knowledge: 67.6Muse Spark 1.3, Reasoning: 59.8Muse Spark 1.3, Maths: 63.1Muse Spark 1.3, Knowledge: 57.2

Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Coding, Agents & tools, Instruction following, Long context, Multimodal, Human preference.

ModelIndex

Where sources disagree

Across the 4 benchmarks both have, Kimi K3.1 Pro Together leads 4, Muse Spark 1.3 leads 0.

Overall indexKimi K3.1 Pro Together (max)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)Leader
BenchLeader Index60.561.7neck 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.

MeasureKimi K3.1 Pro Together (max)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
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
Cost per benchmark task (AA Index)–$2.39
Output tokens per task (AA Index)–91k
Of which reasoning–55k
Time per task (AA Index)–12 min
Output speed–123 tok/s
Time to first answer–36.1 s
Time to a complete answer–88.3 s

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) scores 60.5. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) scores 61.7 and takes 36 s to its first answer token; Muse Spark 1.3 scores 59.2 in 4 s, Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) scores 58.1 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

103 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.

MetricPublisherKimi K3.1 Pro Together (max)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader60.561.7
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader67.657.2
Maths scoreBenchLeader65.863.1
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader67.159.8
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader–65.5
Coding scoreBenchLeader–60.7
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–69.0
Long context scoreBenchLeader–66.3
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader–65.8
Blended price $/MBenchLeader–$2.00
Output speedBenchLeader–123 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader–36.1 s
Context windowBenchLeader–1,048,576 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub94.2%–
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)–1515
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench–89.7%†
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench–89.7%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–93.5%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis–48.7%
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–33.7%
CritPtArtificial Analysis–24.9%
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis–48.0%
MysteryMechanismVals AI–36.0%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub45.0%37.0%
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub42.0%25.0%
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–53.9%†
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–96.5%†
BTF-3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–14.1%†
Coding
SciCodeSciCode–58.8%
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)–1532
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)–1654
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench–83.1%†
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench–81.1%†
IOIVals AI–56.6%
Code MigrationVals AI–47.4%
ProgramBenchVals AI–2.5%
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI–43.1%
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI–20.5%
Show all 103 benchmarks
MetricPublisherKimi K3.1 Pro Together (max)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
Coding
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI–85.9%
CursorBenchCursor–41.6%
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–1688.3†
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 2–57.8†
GameBench 2 by reasoning settingDuelLab GameBench 2–68.7†
Design Arena WebsiteDesign Arena–1343
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–40.6%
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis–23.1%
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench–14.8%†
APEX-AgentsMercor–47.6%
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)–2.2
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench–47.9%†
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench–30.9%†
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench–64.1%†
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI–79.0%
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL–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 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI–24.8%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI–10.0%
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis–57.9%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis–26.6%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey–8.9%
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis–1581
Design Arena AgenticDesign Arena–1278
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–10.9%
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub78.3%74.0%
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub65.8%46.3%
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub100.0%99.2%†
ProofBenchVals AI–58.0%
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench–96.0%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)–1507
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub62.2%–
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–79.6%†
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench–82.5%†
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%†
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)–1485
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)–1496
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)–1467
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)–1493
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)–1497
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)–1309
LiveBench DesignLiveBench–74.8%†
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis–82.0%†
Code2Video-AAArtificial Analysis–1019
AA-3DArtificial Analysis–1032
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis–83.0%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)–1475
MLCRArtificial Analysis–13.9%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–158.0†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench–68.4%†
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench–81.6%†
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis–36.6
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis–48.1
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis–324.5
Vals RSI IndexVals AI–19.6%

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

  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max): first results.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): BenchLeader Index 64.5 → 61.8.
  • 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.

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

Kimi K3.1 Pro Together vs Muse Spark 1.3: questions

Is Kimi K3.1 Pro Together better than Muse Spark 1.3?
Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) and Muse Spark 1.3 (max) are neck and neck on quality (60.5 vs 61.7, within the ±4.1 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 1.3?
Across the 4 benchmarks both have, Kimi K3.1 Pro Together leads 4, Muse Spark 1.3 leads 0.
When was Kimi K3.1 Pro Together released?
Kimi K3.1 Pro Together was released on 23 Oct 2026.