Muse SparkvsGrok Code Fast 1
Muse Spark | Grok Code Fast 1 | |
|---|---|---|
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $1.00 |
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. | — | $2.00 |
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. | — | $0.20 |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 77.4% | 70.8% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | 2.9% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 14.3% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 16.5% | — |
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. | 55% | — |
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. | 10% | — |
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. | 67.3% | — |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 82.2% | — |
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. | 17% | — |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | 49.4% | — |
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. | 50.4% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 42.5% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 89.5% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 53.3% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 88.9% | — |
BabyVisionVisual reasoning — Tests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | 39.9% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 80.4% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Apr 8 2026 | Aug 28 2025 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Muse SparkvsClaude Opus 5Grok Code Fast 1vsClaude Opus 5Muse SparkvsGPT-5.6 SolGrok Code Fast 1vsGPT-5.6 SolMuse SparkvsGemini 3.7 FlashGrok Code Fast 1vsGemini 3.7 FlashMuse SparkvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Grok Code Fast 1vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse SparkvsMistral Medium 3.5Grok Code Fast 1vsMistral Medium 3.5Muse SparkvsKimi K3Grok Code Fast 1vsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark leads Grok Code Fast 1 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (SWE-Bench Verified). Only Grok Code Fast 1 has a verified first-party API price: $1.00 per million input tokens and $2.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Spark. Grok Code Fast 1 shipped 223 days before Muse Spark, 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 Verified, Muse Spark leads at 77.4% vs Grok Code Fast 1 at 70.8%.
Muse Spark was released by Meta on Apr 8 2026.
Grok Code Fast 1 was released by SpaceXAI on Aug 28 2025.
Muse Spark leads on SWE-Bench Verified — Muse Spark 77.4% vs Grok Code Fast 1 70.8%.
Only Grok Code Fast 1 has a verified first-party API price: $1.00 per million input tokens and $2.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Spark. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.