Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.2 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 . 26 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Muse Spark 1.2 Meta

50.3

Rank #48 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 9 categories and Muse Spark 1.2 in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 51.1 to 29.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 78% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 60.3% for Muse Spark 1.2.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper at $1.25 / $4.25 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Muse Spark 1.2 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index58.250.3
Released2026-02-042026-08-05
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M1.05M
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$5$1.25
Output $ / M tokens$25$4.25
Results tracked6831

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: 57.2 (#20), Muse Spark 1.2: 49.2 (#51)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
LMArena WebDev15471533
WeirdML78%60.3%
LMArena Coding15361495
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
DeepSWE—54.9%
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
FrontierSWE—12%
SciCode—56.4%
GSO41.2%—
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Muse Spark 1.2: 29.4 (#87)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
APEX-Agents46.3%36.4%
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
GDP.pdf—16%
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Muse Spark 1.2: 51.3 (#34)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
SimpleBench67.6%74.5%
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%79.2%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271486
DTBench91.2%94.7%
LMCA55.8%48.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24154.87
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—17.7%
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Muse Spark 1.2: 46.4 (#70)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
ProofBench50%43%
LMArena Math15191471
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Muse Spark 1.2: 54.1 (#53)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
SimpleQA Verified47%60.3%
LMArena Expert15461480
GPQA Diamond90.5%—
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—

Multimodal Muse Spark 1.2 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Muse Spark 1.2: 43.4 (#25)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
LMArena Vision13161305
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Muse Spark 1.2: 57.1 (#11)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
LMArena Non-English14891478
LMArena Chinese15511511
LMArena French15131513
LMArena Russian14971487
LMArena Spanish15101498
LMArena German1502—
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1464—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Muse Spark 1.2: 76.7 (#36)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
LMArena Instruction Following15231461

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Muse Spark 1.2: 45.2 (#48)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
LMArena Longer Query15201475
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Muse Spark 1.2: 72.3 (#14)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Muse Spark 1.2
LMArena Text15031482
LMArena Creative Writing15051449
EQ-Bench Creative Writing18091840
LMArena Multi-Turn15131494
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Muse Spark 1.2?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. Muse Spark 1.2 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 1.2?

Muse Spark 1.2 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 1.2 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 49.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Muse Spark 1.2 does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Muse Spark 1.2 share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Muse Spark 1.2 has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper