# Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3

> Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 54.8 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.3 costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-fable-5-1-vs-muse-spark-1-3
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 36

## Summary

- They share 36 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 10 categories and Muse Spark 1.3 in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 69.6 to 42.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 58% for Muse Spark 1.3.
- Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper at $1.25 / $4.25 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Muse Spark 1.3 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 54.8 |
| Rank | 2 | 27 |
| Context | 1M | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $10 | $1.25 |
| Output $/M | $50 | $4.25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1)
- Muse Spark 1.3: 56.6 (#21)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| CursorBench | 51.8% | 41.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | 1657 |
| SciCode | 63.1% | 59.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1514 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5)
- Muse Spark 1.3: 38.6 (#30)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | 57.8% |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | 27.6% |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7)
- Muse Spark 1.3: 54.0 (#27)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | 85.1% |
| CritPt | 31.1% | 26% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 38% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1503 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | 25% |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 96.5% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 53.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 156.75 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.14 |

## Math

- Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4)
- Muse Spark 1.3: 73.1 (#21)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | 74.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | 46.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | 100% | 58% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1494 |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6)
- Muse Spark 1.3: 42.6 (#95)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1516 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4)
- Muse Spark 1.3: 43.7 (#22)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | 1309 |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | 1471 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3)
- Muse Spark 1.3: 57.4 (#8)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1481 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1529 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1524 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1515 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1474 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1501 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1490 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1490 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6)
- Muse Spark 1.3: 77.5 (#22)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1477 |

## Long Context

- Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20)
- Muse Spark 1.3: 45.6 (#32)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1488 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2)
- Muse Spark 1.3: 73.6 (#9)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1490 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1455 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | 1906 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1482 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Muse Spark 1.3?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 54.8 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.3 costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 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 Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Spark 1.3 better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 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 Fable 5.1 and Muse Spark 1.3 share?

36 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.3 has 37.