Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark 1.1
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 49.9 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.1 costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 37 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 37 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 10 categories and Muse Spark 1.1 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5 leads 88.5 to 45.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GBAEval: 74.5% for Claude Fable 5 and 7.9% for Muse Spark 1.1.
- Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper at $1.25 / $4.25 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.
- Muse Spark 1.1 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 66.8 | 49.9 |
| Released | 2026-06-07 | 2026-04-08 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $4.25 |
| Results tracked | 62 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 70.6 (#4), Muse Spark 1.1: 51.3 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 69.9% | 53.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1625 | 1542 |
| SciCode | 61% | 58.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1519 | 1498 |
| FrontierCode | 53.5% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 47% | — |
| GSO | 78.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 63.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,041 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 54.0 (#2), Muse Spark 1.1: 30.8 (#73)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 63.6% | 31.8% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | 40.5% |
| GBAEval | 74.5% | 7.9% |
| GDP.pdf | 30% | 15% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,680 | 6,520 |
| Remote Labor Index | 16.1% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 41.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1230 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 76.8 (#6), Muse Spark 1.1: 47.1 (#44)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.7% | 84.9% |
| CritPt | 28.6% | 15.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1508 | 1486 |
| DTBench | 98.4% | 94.4% |
| LMCA | 61.1% | 49.9% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 95% | 52.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.06 | 154.21 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 89.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 81.9% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 91.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 41% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 39.3% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 39.5% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 52% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.13 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 88.5 (#5), Muse Spark 1.1: 45.5 (#76)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 95% | 39% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1483 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 87% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90.2% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 62.2 (#25), Muse Spark 1.1: 53.1 (#59)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.7% | 57.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1534 | 1478 |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | — |
Multimodal Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 45.3 (#17), Muse Spark 1.1: 42.6 (#29)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1324 | 1293 |
| LMArena Document | 1496 | 1465 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 38.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 35.8% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Claude Fable 5: 57.3 (#9), Muse Spark 1.1: 56.7 (#17)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1481 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1543 | 1518 |
| LMArena French | 1505 | 1494 |
| LMArena German | 1486 | 1466 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1506 | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | 1488 | 1458 |
| LMArena Russian | 1504 | 1483 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1498 | 1464 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 78.6 (#8), Muse Spark 1.1: 76.5 (#39)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1502 | 1457 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#23), Muse Spark 1.1: 44.8 (#58)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1509 | 1462 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 75.9 (#5), Muse Spark 1.1: 73.4 (#11)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | 1479 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1494 | 1437 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1943 | 1927 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1340 | 1260 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1504 | 1485 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5 better than Muse Spark 1.1?
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 49.9 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.1 costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $4.25 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark 1.1 better for coding?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.6 versus 51.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.1 does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and Muse Spark 1.1 share?
37 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 62 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.1 has 37.