Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.3

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 54.4 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.3 costs 5.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #18 Confirmed

Muse Spark 1.3 Meta

54.4

Rank #27 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Muse Spark 1.3 in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 61.8 to 42.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 17% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 38% for Muse Spark 1.3.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper at $1.25 / $4.25 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.3
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index58.354.4
Released2026-02-042026-09-02
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M1.05M
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$5$1.25
Output $ / M tokens$25$4.25
Results tracked6834

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#15), Muse Spark 1.3: 56.1 (#18)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.3
LMArena WebDev15461655
LMArena Coding15351516
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
CursorBench—41.6%
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—59.7%
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4), Muse Spark 1.3: 38.6 (#28)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.3
APEX-Agents46.3%57.8%
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
GDP.pdf—27.6%
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21), Muse Spark 1.3: 52.9 (#27)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.3
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%85.1%
Chess Puzzles17%38%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271503
Mystery Game Puzzles25%25%
DTBench91.2%96.5%
LMCA55.8%53.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.36156.89
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—24.9%
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Bench to the Future 3—0.14
ForecastBench60—

Math Muse Spark 1.3 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25), Muse Spark 1.3: 72.4 (#16)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.3
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%74.4%
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%99.2%
LMArena Math15171497
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23), Muse Spark 1.3: 42.0 (#92)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.3
LMArena Expert15461516
GPQA Diamond90.5%—
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—

Multimodal Muse Spark 1.3 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67), Muse Spark 1.3: 43.0 (#21)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.3
LMArena Vision13161310
LMArena Document15071471
Furniture Assembly28.3%—

Multilingual Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4), Muse Spark 1.3: 57.8 (#6)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.3
LMArena Non-English14901485
LMArena Chinese15511527
LMArena French15131534
LMArena Korean14651513
LMArena Russian14971491
LMArena Spanish15121485
LMArena German1504—
LMArena Japanese1484—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3), Muse Spark 1.3: 77.8 (#14)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.3
LMArena Instruction Following15231481

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Muse Spark 1.3: 45.7 (#29)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.3
LMArena Longer Query15201491
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9), Muse Spark 1.3: 73.7 (#10)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.3
LMArena Text15041490
LMArena Creative Writing15061450
EQ-Bench Creative Writing18091906
LMArena Multi-Turn15141486
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Muse Spark 1.3?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 54.4 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.3 costs 5.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Muse Spark 1.3?

Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $4.25 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Muse Spark 1.3 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 56.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Muse Spark 1.3 does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Muse Spark 1.3 share?

29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.3 has 34.

Related comparisons

Go deeper