Muse Spark 1.1
Meta · Proprietary · rank 15 · bench-align-v5
Canonical idmuse-spark-1-1
Access typeProprietary
Blended $/1MUnavailable75% input / 25% output
Capability shape
Seven axes from the ranking source. A missing axis is drawn as a gap.
Runtime service evidence
Measured values with the date they were observed. Nothing is inferred from a sibling model or a provider claim.
Time to first token: latency to the first answer chunk (Artificial Analysis, via BenchLM). Reasoning models include thinking time, so values can run to tens or hundreds of seconds.
Evidence key: Observed
| Measurement | Value | Observed | Last good | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time to first token | 12.12 s | 2026-09-17 | 2026-09-17 | |
| Throughput | 217 tok/s | 2026-09-17 | 2026-09-17 |
Regional or per-endpoint measurements appear only when the API supplies them; none are modelled here.
Endpoint and price matrix
Every published price component, including cache reads and writes.
Workload-aware monthly cost example
10 conversations per day × 8 messages × 22 active days, 1200 input and 400 output tokens per message, no cache. This uses the same calculator as the cost simulator, so an unavailable applicable rate makes the example unavailable too.
Modelled monthly costUnavailableThe applicable input rate is unavailable.
Modelled tokensUnavailable
Open the simulatorChange this workload
Benchmark record
39 matched benchmark rows with their published value, unit, and provenance.
Knowledge
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLE Humanity's Last Exam | 62.1 | Expert-level questions | Frontier expert level | Humanity's Last Exam |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index | 34.3 | Cross-benchmark intelligence index | Display-only external reference | Artificial Analysis |
| AA-GPQA Diamond Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond | 89.8 | Graduate-level science questions | Graduate-level science reasoning | Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond Benchmark Leaderboard |
| AA-HLE Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam | 46.2 | Expert-level questions | Frontier expert reasoning | Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam Benchmark Leaderboard |
| AA-Omniscience Index Artificial Analysis Omniscience Index | 28.1 | Knowledge questions | Broad factual knowledge | AA-Omniscience: Knowledge and Hallucination Benchmark |
| AA-Omniscience Accuracy Artificial Analysis Omniscience Accuracy | 52.1 | Knowledge questions | Broad knowledge | Artificial Analysis model benchmarks |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate Artificial Analysis Omniscience Hallucination Rate | 50.0 | Knowledge questions | Factuality | Artificial Analysis model benchmarks |
| HealthBench Professional HealthBench Professional | 59.3 | Clinician chat tasks | Professional clinical workflows | HealthBench Professional: Evaluating Large Language Models on Real Clinician Chats |
| HLE w/o tools Humanity's Last Exam without tools | 52.2 | Expert-level questions | Frontier expert level | Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run | 91.2 | Graduate-level science questions | Expert reasoning | Vals AI GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run leaderboard |
| MMLU-Pro (Vals) MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run | 88.7 | Academic multiple-choice questions | Broad academic knowledge | Vals AI MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run leaderboard |
Coding
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 80.0 | Terminal-based software tasks | Professional software engineering | Terminal-Bench 2.0 |
| SWE-bench Pro SWE-bench Pro | 61.5 | 1,865 repository problems | Long-horizon professional engineering | SWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks? |
| AA Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index | 71.3 | Cross-benchmark coding index | Display-only external reference | Artificial Analysis model leaderboards |
| AA-SciCode Artificial Analysis SciCode | 58.8 | Scientific coding subproblems | Scientific programming | Artificial Analysis SciCode Benchmark Leaderboard |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals) LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run | 85.9 | Competitive programming problems (easy, medium, hard) | Frontier coding | Vals AI LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run leaderboard |
| SWE-bench (Vals) SWE-bench, Vals AI run | 82.0 | Real repository issues by human time bucket | Frontier coding agents | Vals AI SWE-bench, Vals AI run leaderboard |
Reasoning
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MRCR 1M MRCR 1M | 54.1 | Million-token retrieval | Million-token long context | DeepSeek-V4 Technical Report |
| AA-LCR Artificial Analysis Long Context Reasoning | 77.7 | Long-context reasoning tasks | Long-context reasoning | Artificial Analysis model benchmarks |
| CritPt Critical Physics Tasks | 15.1 | Research-level physics questions | Research-level physics reasoning | CritPt Benchmark Leaderboard |
Agentic
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 80 | Terminal-based software tasks | Professional software engineering | Terminal-Bench 2.0 |
| GDPval-AA GDPval-AA | 1375 | Agentic real-world work tasks | Professional agentic workflows | DeepSeek-V4 Technical Report |
| GDPval-AA GDPval-AA normalized | 39.7 | Economically valuable tasks | Professional agentic workflows | Artificial Analysis model benchmarks |
| AA Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index | 27.5 | Cross-benchmark agentic index | Display-only external reference | Artificial Analysis model leaderboards |
| OSWorld-Verified OSWorld-Verified | 80.8 | 369 real-world computer tasks (361 when eight Google Drive tasks are excluded) | Multi-step desktop and cross-application workflows | OSWorld |
| OSWorld 2.0 OSWorld 2.0 | 14.2 | 108 long-horizon computer-use workflows | Long-horizon professional workflows | OSWorld2.0: Benchmarking Computer Use Agents on Long-Horizon Real-World Tasks |
| CyberGym CyberGym | 59.0 | 1,507 vulnerability analysis instances | Real-world cybersecurity | CyberGym: Evaluating AI Agents' Real-World Cybersecurity Capabilities at Scale |
| Cybench Cybench | 92.9 | 40 professional CTF tasks | Professional cybersecurity | Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Models |
| ExploitGym ExploitGym | 0.8 | 898 exploitation tasks | Advanced cybersecurity exploitation | ExploitGym: Can AI Agents Turn Security Vulnerabilities into Real Attacks? |
| JobBench JobBench | 54.7 | 130 tasks across 35 occupations | Professional multi-source workflows | JobBench: Aligning Agent Work With Human Will |
| MCP Atlas MCP Atlas | 88.1 | Tool-integrated agent tasks | Advanced tool use | Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano |
| Toolathlon Toolathlon | 75.6 | Multi-tool workflows | Advanced tool use | Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano |
| DeepSearchQA DeepSearchQA | 84.9 | Agentic browsing and list-answer questions | Agentic web research | Muse Spark Eval Methodology |
| WebArena-Verified WebArena-Verified Browser Agent Benchmark | 69 | 812 verified tasks; separate 258-task Hard subset | Audited stateful browser work | WebArena-Verified: A Fully Audited Benchmark for Web Agents |
| Finance Agent v2 Finance Agent v2 | 57.2 | Financial analyst task categories | Professional expert-task agent workflow | Finance Agent v2 |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run | 69.3 | Difficult terminal tasks | Frontier agentic | Vals AI Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run leaderboard |
Multimodal & Grounded
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena Website Design Arena Website Elo | 1281 | Website generation comparisons | Design and website generation | OpenRouter Grok 4.3 benchmarks |
| CharXiv CharXiv Reasoning | 88.4 | Scientific chart reasoning | Scientific visualization reasoning | CharXiv: Charting Gaps in Realistic Chart Understanding in Multimodal LLMs |
| BabyVision BabyVision | 76.3 | Visual perception tasks | Fine-grained visual perception | Muse Spark 1.1 Evaluation Report |
Lifecycle and limitations log
Lifecycle events the source associates with this model, plus what this profile does not claim.
No lifecycle event references this model.
That is not evidence the model has no lifecycle plan — only that this source published none.
What this profile does not claimValues are reproduced exactly as their sources published them, in the units those sources declared; none are converted, interpolated, or averaged across providers. Any field marked unavailable was attempted and not returned — the attempt timestamp is in each badge. Last attempted fetch for this model’s score: 2026-09-17 17:17 UTC.