Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Spark 1.3
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 54.8 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.3 costs 5.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 36 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 36 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 5 categories and Muse Spark 1.3 in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 61.3 to 42.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Mystery Game Puzzles: 36% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 25% 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 4.8.
- Muse Spark 1.3 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Spark 1.3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 54.8 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2026-09-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $4.25 |
| Results tracked | 65 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Muse Spark 1.3: 56.6 (#21)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | 1657 |
| SciCode | 53.5% | 59.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | 1514 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| CursorBench | — | 41.6% |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Muse Spark 1.3: 38.6 (#30)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | 57.8% |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | 27.6% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Muse Spark 1.3: 54.0 (#27)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | 85.1% |
| CritPt | 20.9% | 26% |
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | 38% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1503 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | 25% |
| DTBench | 94.9% | 96.5% |
| LMCA | 57.5% | 53.9% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | 0.14 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.21 | 156.75 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Muse Spark 1.3: 73.1 (#21)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | 74.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | 46.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | 69% | 58% |
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1494 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Muse Spark 1.3: 42.6 (#95)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | 1516 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
Multimodal Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Muse Spark 1.3: 43.7 (#22)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | 1309 |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | 1471 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
Multilingual Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Muse Spark 1.3: 57.4 (#8)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1481 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1529 |
| LMArena French | 1481 | 1524 |
| LMArena German | 1472 | 1515 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | 1474 |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | 1501 |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | 1490 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | 1490 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Muse Spark 1.3: 77.5 (#22)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1477 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Muse Spark 1.3: 45.6 (#32)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1488 |
Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Muse Spark 1.3: 73.6 (#9)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1490 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1455 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | 1906 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1482 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Muse Spark 1.3?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 54.8 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.3 costs 5.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Muse Spark 1.3 better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 56.6 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 4.8 and Muse Spark 1.3 share?
36 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.3 has 37.