Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsMuse Spark
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded) | Muse Spark | |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmarks | ||
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | — | 2.9% |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 14.3% |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 16.5% |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 55% |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 49% | 77.4%Best |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 10% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 67.3% |
Multi-step tool use MCP AtlasCan the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | — | 82.2% |
Professional tool use JobBenchTests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 17% |
Personal tool use Toolathlon-VerifiedTests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 49.4% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 50.4% |
Abstract reasoning ARC-AGI-2Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | — | 42.5% |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 89.5% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 53.3% |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 88.9% |
Visual reasoning BabyVisionTests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | — | 39.9% |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 80.4% |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | — | 1488 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Meta |
| Release date | Oct 22 2024 | Apr 8 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded) or Muse Spark?
Muse Spark leads Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded) on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (SWE-Bench Verified). Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded) shipped 533 days before Muse Spark, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Muse Spark leads at 77.4% vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded) at 49%.
Frequently asked questions
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded) was released by Anthropic on Oct 22 2024.
Muse Spark was released by Meta on Apr 8 2026.
Muse Spark leads on SWE-Bench Verified — Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded) 49% vs Muse Spark 77.4%.
Other comparisons
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsGPT-5.6-CyberMuse SparkvsGPT-5.6-CyberClaude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsGemini 3.7 FlashMuse SparkvsGemini 3.7 FlashClaude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsGrok 4.6Muse SparkvsGrok 4.6Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse SparkvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsMistral Medium 3.5Muse SparkvsMistral Medium 3.5Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsKimi K3Muse SparkvsKimi K3