Model comparison
Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.1
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 49.9 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.1 costs 1.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.6 scores higher in 6 categories and Muse Spark 1.1 in 4 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.6 leads 67.0 to 45.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is APEX-Agents: 65.3% for Grok 4.6 and 31.8% for Muse Spark 1.1.
- Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper at $1.25 / $4.25 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- Muse Spark 1.1 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 56.9 | 49.9 |
| Released | 2026-08-12 | 2026-04-08 |
| 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 | 49 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16), Muse Spark 1.1: 51.3 (#40)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 67.5% | 53.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1617 | 1542 |
| SciCode | 56.5% | 58.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1465 | 1498 |
| FrontierCode | 48% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.4% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 25.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 67.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,508 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27), Muse Spark 1.1: 30.8 (#73)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.3% | 31.8% |
| GDP.pdf | 17.2% | 15% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,047 | 6,520 |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 40.5% |
| GBAEval | — | 7.9% |
Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20), Muse Spark 1.1: 47.1 (#44)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80% | 84.9% |
| CritPt | 19.7% | 15.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1447 | 1486 |
| DTBench | 97.3% | 94.4% |
| LMCA | 48.5% | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.44 | 154.21 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 67.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 75.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 40% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 30.5% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 34% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 52.5% |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24), Muse Spark 1.1: 45.5 (#76)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 51% | 39% |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | 1483 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 99.2% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20), Muse Spark 1.1: 53.1 (#59)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | 49.3% | 57.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1467 | 1478 |
| GPQA Diamond | 94% | — |
Multimodal Too close to call
Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23), Muse Spark 1.1: 42.6 (#29)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | 1293 |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | 1465 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 40% | — |
Multilingual Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74), Muse Spark 1.1: 56.7 (#17)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1420 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1480 | 1518 |
| LMArena French | 1461 | 1494 |
| LMArena German | 1431 | 1466 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1376 | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | 1397 | 1458 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1483 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1404 | 1464 |
Instruction Following Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63), Muse Spark 1.1: 76.5 (#39)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1431 | 1457 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66), Muse Spark 1.1: 44.8 (#58)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1454 | 1462 |
Writing & Preference Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80), Muse Spark 1.1: 73.4 (#11)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1479 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1428 | 1437 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1425 | 1485 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1927 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1260 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.6 better than Muse Spark 1.1?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 49.9 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.1 costs 1.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.6 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; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.6 or Muse Spark 1.1 better for coding?
Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 51.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.1 does, with 1.05M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and Muse Spark 1.1 share?
32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.1 has 37.