Muse Spark 1.2vsComposer 2.5
Muse Spark 1.2 | Composer 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | ||
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 | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 82.9% | 73% |
| 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. | 50% | — |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can 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. | — | 54% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like 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% |
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. | 59.3% | — |
DeepSWE 1.0Agentic 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. Higher is better. | — | 18% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel'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. | — | 81% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can 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% |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1120 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Aug 5 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Muse Spark 1.2vsClaude Fable 5.1Composer 2.5vsClaude Fable 5.1Muse Spark 1.2vsGPT-6 AstraComposer 2.5vsGPT-6 AstraMuse Spark 1.2vsGemini 3.8 FlashComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.8 FlashMuse Spark 1.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashComposer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse Spark 1.2vsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Muse Spark 1.2vsKimi K3Composer 2.5vsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark 1.2 leads Composer 2.5 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench 2.1). Composer 2.5 shipped 79 days before Muse Spark 1.2, 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 Terminal-Bench 2.1, Muse Spark 1.2 leads at 82.9% vs Composer 2.5 at 73%.