Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark 1.1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.68/100
Margin
6.2pts
← winning
77.44/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Muse Spark 1.1 #6 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Muse Spark 1.1 share 23 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 16 to Muse Spark 1.1.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
23
Claude Fable 5 only
11
Muse Spark 1.1 only
16
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Muse Spark 1.1 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 23 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 77.44. 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 coding, where it averages 89.2 against 61.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 80% to 61.5%. Muse Spark 1.1 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 1M for Muse Spark 1.1.

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 1.1
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔMuse Spark 1.1
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9Margin→ 30.5Muse Spark 1.188.4
CodingClaude Fable 589.2Margin← 27.7Muse Spark 1.161.5
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6Margin← 4.2Muse Spark 1.180.4
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark 1.162.1

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Fable 5B · Muse Spark 1.1

  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80%B 61.5%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 18.5
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; Muse Spark 1.1 scored 61.5%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 80%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 4.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Muse Spark 1.1 scored 80%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 85%B 80.8%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 4.2
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 85%; Muse Spark 1.1 scored 80.8%. 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 Spark 1.1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputMuse Spark 1.1Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableMuse Spark 1.1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableMuse Spark 1.1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+Muse Spark 1.11MClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse Spark 1.1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%80%Claude Fable 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%80.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 17481374Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 52.8%37.5%Claude Fable 5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 62.4%43.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1574863Claude Fable 5 leads
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.6%42.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 51.1%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 93.6%93.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Tau3 BankingSource 26.8%25.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
terminalBenchHardSource 62.9%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%77.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
MCP AtlasSource —88.1%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —75.6%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —84.9%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —59.0%Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source —57.2%Not comparable
deepSweSource —53.3%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —14.2%Not comparable
JobBenchSource —54.7%Not comparable
CybenchSource —92.9%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource —0.8%Not comparable
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse Spark 1.1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 80%61.5%Claude Fable 5 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 53.5%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%80.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
cursorBench31Source 70.6%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 70.5%—Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source 87.0%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 76.5%71.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 60.2%58.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse Spark 1.1Result
AA-LCRSource 70.0%63.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
CritPtSource 28.6%15.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
MRCR 1MSource —54.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse Spark 1.1Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%50.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%89.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%45.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%18.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%40.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%38.1%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
HLESource —62.1%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —52.2%Not comparable
HealthBench ProfessionalSource —59.3%Not comparable
MultimodalMuse Spark 1.1 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse Spark 1.1Result
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%—Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13321299Claude Fable 5 leads
CharXivSource —88.4%Not comparable
BabyVisionSource —76.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Muse Spark 1.1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 77.44. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 80% and 61.5%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 61.5. 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 1.1?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 80.4. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88.4 versus 57.9. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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.