Model comparison
Grok 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.2
Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 49.8 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.2 costs 1.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.5 scores higher in 5 categories and Muse Spark 1.2 in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.5 leads 60.7 to 43.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is APEX-Agents: 56.2% for Grok 4.5 and 36.4% for Muse Spark 1.2.
- Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper at $1.25 / $4.25 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.5.
- Muse Spark 1.2 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 55.0 | 49.8 |
| Released | 2026-07-08 | 2026-08-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 500K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 500K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $4.25 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 51.7 (#34), Muse Spark 1.2: 48.6 (#49)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 53.8% | 54.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1552 | 1532 |
| SciCode | 54.1% | 56.4% |
| WeirdML | 46.4% | 60.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1473 | 1497 |
| FrontierCode | 42.4% | — |
| FrontierSWE | — | 12% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,309 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#15), Muse Spark 1.2: 29.5 (#77)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 56.2% | 36.4% |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | 16% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 47.9% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 23.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 65.4% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1213 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,887 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 56.0 (#23), Muse Spark 1.2: 50.4 (#32)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 70% | 74.5% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 79.9% | 79.2% |
| CritPt | 15.4% | 17.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1462 | 1490 |
| DTBench | 96.5% | 94.7% |
| LMCA | 45.2% | 48.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.02 | 155.18 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 52.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 36% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 74.4% | — |
Math Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 60.7 (#29), Muse Spark 1.2: 43.8 (#68)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 31% | 43% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 57.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 24.4% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1457 | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#21), Muse Spark 1.2: 53.9 (#49)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | 48.3% | 60.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1466 | 1485 |
| GPQA Diamond | 93.4% | — |
Multimodal Muse Spark 1.2 leads
Grok 4.5: 37.8 (#63), Muse Spark 1.2: 42.6 (#24)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1287 | 1304 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 27.3% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 22.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |
Multilingual Muse Spark 1.2 leads
Grok 4.5: 54.5 (#43), Muse Spark 1.2: 57.4 (#10)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | 1479 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1497 | 1519 |
| LMArena Russian | 1447 | 1494 |
| LMArena French | 1458 | — |
| LMArena German | 1448 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1425 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1402 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1452 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 76.3 (#45), Muse Spark 1.2: 77.1 (#30)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1446 | 1466 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#54), Muse Spark 1.2: 45.4 (#35)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1483 |
Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.2 leads
Grok 4.5: 65.9 (#40), Muse Spark 1.2: 72.6 (#14)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1486 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1442 | 1444 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1579 | 1840 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1457 | 1504 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.5 better than Muse Spark 1.2?
Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 49.8 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.2 costs 1.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.5 or Muse Spark 1.2?
Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $4.25 per million output tokens; Grok 4.5 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.5 or Muse Spark 1.2 better for coding?
Grok 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.7 versus 48.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.2 does, with 1.05M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.5 and Muse Spark 1.2 share?
27 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.5 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.2 has 28.