Skip to main content

AnthropicMetaLLM matchup

Claude Fable 5.2vs.Muse Spark 1.3

Which one is better?

Claude Fable 5.2 performs better than Muse Spark 1.3, but costs 6.4 times (input) and 9.4 times (output) as much.

Fable 5.2 ahead
IntelligenceOverall index, 100 points = average
130.9

Claude Fable 5.2

Rank 1

107.3

Muse Spark 1.3

Rank 18

SpeedTokens per second
n/a

Claude Fable 5.2

102

Muse Spark 1.3

Muse Spark 1.3 cheaper
Price$ per 1M tokens
$16

Claude Fable 5.2

$2

Muse Spark 1.3

Choose Claude Fable 5.2 for

KnowledgeMathematicsCodingGeneralAgentsReasoningFinanceLegal (not certain)

Choose Muse Spark 1.3 for

No clear advantage

Where is the difference?

Strengths at a glance

Fable 5.2Muse Spark 1.3Median of all ranked models

11513515595CodingFable 5.2ReasoningFable 5.2MathematicsFable 5.2KnowledgeFable 5.2AgentsFable 5.2GeneralFable 5.2FinanceFable 5.2LegalslightlyFable 5.2
CodingFable 5.2 ahead
Fable 5.2131.6Rank 1
Muse Spark 1.3106.0Rank 21
Median of ranked models87.4

95 % range: Fable 5.2 122.0 to 141.1, Muse Spark 1.3 102.9 to 109.0.

AreaFable 5.2Muse Spark 1.3

The same values and verdicts as the bars below. In the close-up the net starts at 95 points, just below the weaker model's lowest value; the reference group average is 100. Not in the net because a model has no own value there or the data are too thin: Multimodal, Health.

Fable 5.2 is ahead in 7 of 9 areas, Muse Spark 1.3 in none.

Fable 5.2 ahead: 7Fable 5.2 slightly ahead: 1too little data: 1

Areas in the overall index
KnowledgeFable 5.2 +37145.5 to 108.7
MathematicsFable 5.2 +35135.2 to 100.1
CodingFable 5.2 +26131.6 to 106.0
GeneralFable 5.2 +24132.8 to 108.3
AgentsFable 5.2 +21124.2 to 102.8
ReasoningFable 5.2 +15124.9 to 110.2
Multimodalonly Muse Spark 1.3 has a score
Specialist fields
FinanceFable 5.2 +12123.5 to 112.0
Legalleaning Fable 5.2not certain · 3 and 2 tests

Bar length shows the gap in index points (full width 15 points, one standard deviation of the reference group). Solid means clearly ahead, hatched not certain yet, a thin grey bar level.

Show 1 more areas that do not count toward the overall index
Cybersecurityonly Muse Spark 1.3 has a score

Bar length shows the gap in index points (full width 15 points, one standard deviation of the reference group). Solid means clearly ahead, hatched not certain yet, a thin grey bar level.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Muse Spark 1.3 at the same effort

Both models measured at the same reasoning efforts. This shows whether a lead comes from the model or only from more compute.

maxFable 5.2 ahead
25.0 points gap across 11 shared test series
Overall index (max vs. max)Fable 5.2 ahead
Fable 5.2 130.9 vs. Muse Spark 1.3 107.3

The gap compares only the Artificial Analysis test series in which both models are measured at that effort. Tied below 3 points, ahead only beyond two standard errors.

Which model for which task?

Everyday tasks, translated from the area values above. Each row names the values it rests on.

Writing and debugging codeFable 5.2Coding 131.6 to 106.0
Maths and data analysisFable 5.2Mathematics 135.2 to 100.1, Reasoning 124.9 to 110.2
Facts and researchFable 5.2Knowledge 145.5 to 108.7
Agents and workflowsFable 5.2Agents 124.2 to 102.8
Security analysisopenCybersecurity without a score for Fable 5.2
Many requests on a small budgetMuse Spark 1.3$16 to $2 per 1M tokens
Finance, legal and medical textsFable 5.2Finance 123.5 to 112.0, Legal 120.9 to 106.0
Images, screenshots and PDFsopenMultimodal without a score for Fable 5.2

Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Muse Spark 1.3 in our own test

The same prompt for both models. We show the latest attempt without fixes; it does not count toward the overall index.

Pelican on a bicycle

Prompt

Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle

Task origin: Simon Willison

Claude Fable 5.2

Not tested yet

Muse Spark 1.3

Muse Spark 1.3: Pelican on a bicycle
A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.

Oct 2, 2026 · 88 s · $0.03

Test details
Run date
Oct 2, 2026
API provider
openrouter
Requested API model
meta/muse-spark-1.3
Reasoning setting
high
Token limit including reasoning
8,192 tokens
Output tokens
7,269 tokens
Cost of the attempt
$0.0309
Response time
87.9 s
API model reported in response
meta/muse-spark-1.3
Pinned endpoint
Meta | meta/muse-spark-1.3-20260902
Temperature
Provider default
Test protocol
community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks
Passed, not a quality rating

Visually reviewed. This individual test does not establish overall model quality.

Earlier attempts (2)

  • Oct 1, 2026Output withheld for safetyReasoning setting: high
  • Sep 7, 2026API request failedReasoning setting: high
SVG short test

There is no shared test round for this selection. Results from different rounds are not mixed.

Claude Fable 5.2 and Muse Spark 1.3 in the overall index

Every model with a place in the overall index, both models of this matchup highlighted. You can add or hide other models.

Overall index (Gradually Meta-Score v5)

20 of 94 models

4 models in this view are measured at a lower reasoning effort than max in the overall index. Dashed column: lower reasoning effort than the top.

Claude Fable 5.2max130.9
Gemini 4 Carbonhigh127.0
Claude Opus 5.5max125.6
Claude Fable 5.1max124.1
Claude Sonnet 5.5max121.8
Gemini 4 Argonhigh121.4
GPT-6 Astramax120.2
Muse Wonder Fullmax118.1
GPT-6.1 Solmax118.0
Claude Opus 5max117.4
Muse Wondermax113.3
Claude Fable 5max112.8
Kimi K3.1 Promax112.6
Muse Ember 1.0max110.4
GPT-6 Solmax109.1
GPT-5.6 Solmax109.1
Gemini 3.7 Flashhigh107.9
Muse Spark 1.3max107.3
Gemini 3.8 Flashhigh106.8
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017max106.7

All data side by side

The better value is bold. For the overall index only when the gap is clear.

MetricClaude Fable 5.2Muse Spark 1.3
Intelligence
Overall indexpoints, 100 = reference group average, higher is better130.9107.3
RankRank 1 of 94Rank 18 of 94
Price per 1M tokens
Inputwhat you send$8$1.25
Outputwhat the model writes$40$4.25
Speed
Tokens per secondn/a102
Technical
Context windowhow much text the model reads at once1 M tokens≈ 1,500 A4 pages1.05 M tokens≈ 1,570 A4 pages
Knowledge cutoffJune 2026n/a
ReleasedNov 9, 2026Sep 2, 2026
AvailabilityActiveActive
Open weightsnono
  • Claude Fable 5.2, Batch pricing: $4 input and $20 output per million tokens, separate from standard API pricing. Source
  • Claude Fable 5.2, Fast pricing: $16 input and $80 output per million tokens. Fast is a separate serving mode. Source

Prices without caching or batch discounts · Page count as a rule of thumb from Artificial Analysis

Is there a better choice?

Cheaper than Muse Spark 1.3Muse Ember 1.0

Overall index 110.4, rank 14$0.10 input and $0.50 output per 1M tokens

View profile

Shared benchmarks

Single results from the same benchmark version, task and metric. A value is bold only with the same test setup and a clear gap.

A: Claude Fable 5.2B: Muse Spark 1.3

Tax Agent BenchOverall · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 32.1%Muse Spark 1.3: 37.9%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchControversy & Precedence Analysis · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 13.3%Muse Spark 1.3: 19.0%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchControversy & Precedence Analysis (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 58.2%Muse Spark 1.3: 61.2%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchCurrent & Temporal Analysis (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 66.0%Muse Spark 1.3: 73.4%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchFact-Pattern Analysis · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 27.9%Muse Spark 1.3: 48.4%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchFact-Pattern Analysis (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 64.5%Muse Spark 1.3: 80.6%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchForms & Filings · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 20%Muse Spark 1.3: 19%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchForms & Filings (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 60.1%Muse Spark 1.3: 72.0%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchNumbers & Calculations · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 50%Muse Spark 1.3: 40%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchNumbers & Calculations (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 86.4%Muse Spark 1.3: 81.9%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Show 3 more benchmarks
Tax Agent BenchRule & Source Lookup · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 46.7%Muse Spark 1.3: 46.7%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchRule & Source Lookup (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 68.0%Muse Spark 1.3: 68.1%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchWeighted Pass · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 67.0%Muse Spark 1.3: 73.4%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026

More comparisons

Compare Claude Fable 5.2 and Muse Spark 1.3 with the models people compare them with most often.

Compare another matchup

The most popular comparisons

  1. 1Muse Spark 1.3 vs. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
  2. 2Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Kimi K3
  3. 3Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Muse Spark 1.3
  4. 4GPT-6 Luna vs. Muse Spark 1.3
  5. 5Claude Haiku 5.5 vs. Muse Spark 1.3
  6. 6Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs. Muse Spark 1.3
  7. 7Gemini 3.8 Flash vs. Muse Spark 1.3
  8. 8Muse Spark 1.3 vs. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
  9. 9Claude Opus 5 vs. Muse Spark 1.3
Show all 22 comparisons
  1. 10GPT-5.6 Sol vs. Muse Spark 1.3
  2. 11Muse Spark 1.3 vs. Qwen 3.8 Max 0902
  3. 12Muse Spark 1.3 vs. DeepSeek-V4-Flash
  4. 13Muse Wonder vs. Muse Spark 1.3
  5. 14Muse Spark 1.3 vs. Kimi K3
  6. 15Muse Spark 1.3 vs. Qwen 3.8 27B
  7. 16Muse Spark 1.3 vs. Grok 4.7
  8. 17Muse Wonder Full vs. Muse Spark 1.3
  9. 18Claude Opus 4.6 vs. Muse Spark 1.3
  10. 19Muse Spark 1.3 vs. Mistral Large 4
  11. 20Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Claude Opus 5.5
  12. 21Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Claude Haiku 5.5
  13. 22GPT-6.1 Terra vs. Muse Spark 1.3