Gemini 2.5 FlashvsMuse Spark 1.3
Gemini 2.5 Flash | Muse Spark 1.3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.30 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $2.50 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.03 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $1.25Meta |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $4.25Meta |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 19% | — |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial 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. | — | 75.4% |
SWEAtlas CodeBase QnACodebase understanding — Questions about how an unfamiliar codebase actually works — where something is handled, what a change would touch — answered by reading the repository rather than editing it. Tests understanding rather than patch-writing. Higher is better. | — | 59.4% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 88.8% |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests 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. | — | 64.9% |
DeepSearchQAAgentic browsing — Questions that cannot be answered from one page: the AI has to search the web, follow the trail across several sources, and put the pieces together into an answer. Higher is better. | — | 89.4% |
Agentic IF Index (Internal)Instruction following — Meta's internal measure of whether a model keeps following the instructions it was given while working as an agent — over a long run of tool calls, not just in a single reply. Higher is better. | — | 57.8% |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | — | 66.9% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | — | 49.4% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1754 |
MRCR · 256k-512kLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document, here across inputs of roughly 256k to 512k tokens — several books' worth of text. Higher is better. | — | 98.5% |
MRCR · 512k-1MLong context — The same buried-detail retrieval test run on even longer inputs, from roughly 512k up to a million tokens. Scores usually slip as the document grows, so read it against the shorter span above. Higher is better. | — | 98.1% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | |
| Release date | Apr 17 2025 | Sep 2 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.5 FlashvsClaude Fable 5.1Muse Spark 1.3vsClaude Fable 5.1Gemini 2.5 FlashvsGPT-6 AstraMuse Spark 1.3vsGPT-6 AstraGemini 2.5 FlashvsGrok 4.6Muse Spark 1.3vsGrok 4.6Gemini 2.5 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse Spark 1.3vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 2.5 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Muse Spark 1.3vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 2.5 FlashvsKimi K3Muse Spark 1.3vsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Muse Spark 1.3 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Gemini 2.5 Flash has a verified first-party API price: $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Spark 1.3. Gemini 2.5 Flash shipped 503 days before Muse Spark 1.3, 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.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 2.5 Flash and Muse Spark 1.3 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
Gemini 2.5 Flash was released by Google on Apr 17 2025.
Muse Spark 1.3 was released by Meta on Sep 2 2026.
Only Gemini 2.5 Flash has a verified first-party API price: $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Spark 1.3. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.