Muse Spark 1.3vsKimi K2
Muse Spark 1.3 | Kimi K2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 1T |
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 | 128k |
| 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. | — | $0.57Novita |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $2.30Novita |
| 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. | — | 10% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real 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. | — | 65.8% |
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. | 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% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 75.1% |
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 | Moonshot AI |
| Release date | Sep 2 2026 | Jul 11 2025 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Muse Spark 1.3vsClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2vsClaude Fable 5.1Muse Spark 1.3vsGPT-5.6 SolKimi K2vsGPT-5.6 SolMuse Spark 1.3vsGemini 3.8 FlashKimi K2vsGemini 3.8 FlashMuse Spark 1.3vsGrok 4.6Kimi K2vsGrok 4.6Muse Spark 1.3vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Kimi K2vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse Spark 1.3vsMistral Medium 3.5Kimi K2vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark 1.3 and Kimi K2 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Kimi K2 shipped 418 days before Muse Spark 1.3, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Spark 1.3) vs 128k (Kimi K2). Muse Spark 1.3 is proprietary, while Kimi K2 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Spark 1.3 and Kimi K2 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
Muse Spark 1.3 was released by Meta on Sep 2 2026.
Kimi K2 was released by Moonshot AI on Jul 11 2025.
Muse Spark 1.3 has a 1M context window; Kimi K2 has 128k.
Muse Spark 1.3 is a proprietary model released by Meta. Kimi K2 is an open weight model released by Moonshot AI.