Muse Spark 1.1vsComposer 2.5
Muse Spark 1.1 | Composer 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 61.5%Best | 54% |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 79.8% |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.2Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | — | 56.1% |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.1Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | — | 63.2% |
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. | 53.3% | — |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.0Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. Higher is better. | — | 18% |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 92% |
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. | 80%Best | 73% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
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. | 88.1% | — |
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. | 54.7% | — |
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. | 75.6% | — |
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. | 62.1% | — |
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. | 80.8% | — |
Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v2Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 57.2% | — |
Agentic legal work Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkHarvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 20% | — |
Tax questions TaxEval v2A set of real tax questions created by Vals AI — can the AI give accurate answers about tax rules and filings? Higher is better. | 79.72% | — |
Medical admin work MedScribeCan the AI support doctors with their administrative work, like notes and paperwork? Created by Vals AI. Higher is better. | 88.89% | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 88.4% | — |
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. | 76.3% | — |
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. | 1490 | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1540 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Jul 9 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Muse Spark 1.1 or Composer 2.5?
Muse Spark 1.1 leads Composer 2.5 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1). Composer 2.5 shipped 52 days before Muse Spark 1.1, 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 Pro, Muse Spark 1.1 leads at 61.5% vs Composer 2.5 at 54%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Muse Spark 1.1 leads at 80% vs Composer 2.5 at 73%.
Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark 1.1 was released by Meta on Jul 9 2026.
Composer 2.5 was released by SpaceXAI on May 18 2026.
Muse Spark 1.1 leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Muse Spark 1.1 61.5% vs Composer 2.5 54%.
Other comparisons
Muse Spark 1.1vsClaude Opus 5Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5Muse Spark 1.1vsGPT-5.6-CyberComposer 2.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberMuse Spark 1.1vsGemini 3.7 FlashComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.7 FlashMuse Spark 1.1vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Composer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse Spark 1.1vsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Muse Spark 1.1vsKimi K3Composer 2.5vsKimi K3