Muse Spark 1.3vsGLM-5.2
Muse Spark 1.3 | GLM-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | — | 744B |
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 | 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. | — | $1.40 |
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. | — | $4.40 |
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. | — | $0.26 |
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. | — | $0.4875DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $1.56DeepInfra |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 44% |
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% | 81% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1754 | 1514 |
| 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. | — | 31% |
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. | — | 62.1% |
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% |
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% | — |
Frontier-Bench v0.1Agentic computer work — A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | — | 5.1% |
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% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 40.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity'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. | — | 54.7% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 91.2% |
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% | — |
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 | Z.ai |
| Release date | Sep 2 2026 | Jun 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Muse Spark 1.3vsClaude Fable 5.1GLM-5.2vsClaude Fable 5.1Muse Spark 1.3vsGPT-5.6 SolGLM-5.2vsGPT-5.6 SolMuse Spark 1.3vsGemini 3.8 FlashGLM-5.2vsGemini 3.8 FlashMuse Spark 1.3vsGrok 4.6GLM-5.2vsGrok 4.6Muse Spark 1.3vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GLM-5.2vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse Spark 1.3vsMistral Medium 3.5GLM-5.2vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark 1.3 leads GLM-5.2 on 3 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, Terminal-Bench 2.1, GDPval-AA v2). Only GLM-5.2 has a verified first-party API price: $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Spark 1.3. GLM-5.2 shipped 78 days before Muse Spark 1.3, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Spark 1.3) vs 1M (GLM-5.2). Muse Spark 1.3 is proprietary, while GLM-5.2 is open weight.
On DeepSWE 1.1, Muse Spark 1.3 leads at 75.4% vs GLM-5.2 at 44%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Muse Spark 1.3 leads at 88.8% vs GLM-5.2 at 81%. On GDPval-AA v2, Muse Spark 1.3 leads at 1754 vs GLM-5.2 at 1514.
Muse Spark 1.3 was released by Meta on Sep 2 2026.
GLM-5.2 was released by Z.ai on Jun 16 2026.
Muse Spark 1.3 leads on DeepSWE 1.1 — Muse Spark 1.3 75.4% vs GLM-5.2 44%.
Only GLM-5.2 has a verified first-party API price: $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 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.
Muse Spark 1.3 has a 1M context window; GLM-5.2 has 1M.
Muse Spark 1.3 is a proprietary model released by Meta. GLM-5.2 is an open weight model released by Z.ai.