Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.68/100
Margin
12.6pts
← winning
71.04/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Muse Spark #13 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Muse Spark share 18 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 21 to Muse Spark.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
18
Claude Fable 5 only
16
Muse Spark only
21
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Muse Spark only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Fable 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 83.68 to 71.04. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Fable 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 84.6 against 59. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 80% to 52.4%. Muse Spark does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 262K for Muse Spark.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Fable 5 and Muse Spark
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔMuse Spark
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6Margin← 25.6Muse Spark59.0
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9Margin→ 24.6Muse Spark82.5
CodingClaude Fable 589.2Margin← 21.4Muse Spark67.8
ReasoningClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark42.5
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark50.4
MathClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark32.9

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Fable 5B · Muse Spark

  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80%B 52.4%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 27.6
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; Muse Spark scored 52.4%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 59%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 25.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Muse Spark scored 59%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 77.4%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 17.6
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; Muse Spark scored 77.4%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Fable 5Muse SparkComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputMuse SparkNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableMuse SparkNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableMuse SparkNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+Muse Spark262KClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse SparkResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%59%Claude Fable 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 17481144Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 52.8%28.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%91.5%Claude Fable 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 62.4%32.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1574—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.6%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 51.1%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 93.6%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 26.8%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 62.9%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —74.8%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —43.5%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —63.8%Not comparable
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse SparkResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95%77.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 80%52.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 53.5%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 70.6%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 70.5%—Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source 87.0%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 76.5%58.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 60.2%51.5%Claude Fable 5 leads
LiveCodeBench ProSource —80.0%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —19.67%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse SparkResult
AA-LCRSource 70.0%69.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
CritPtSource 28.6%11.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
ARC-AGI-2Source —42.5%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse SparkResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%43.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%88.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%39.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%4.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%44.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%73.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
GPQA-DSource —89.5%Not comparable
HLESource —50.4%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —42.8%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —42.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —52.6%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse SparkResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —39.000%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —14.600%Not comparable
MultimodalMuse Spark wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse SparkResult
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%—Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1332—Not comparable
CharXivSource —86.4%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —80.4%Not comparable
ERQASource —64.7%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —71.3%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —84.1%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource —33.0%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —78.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse SparkResult
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%75.9%Muse Spark leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark?

Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 71.04. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 80% and 52.4%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 67.8. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 59. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark?

Muse Spark has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.5 versus 57.9. Claude Fable 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.