Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Muse Spark 1.1
Head-to-head evidence from 25 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.6 Terra #11 (Estimated); Muse Spark 1.1 #6 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.6 Terra and Muse Spark 1.1 share 25 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to GPT-5.6 Terra; 14 to Muse Spark 1.1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 25
- GPT-5.6 Terra only
- 19
- Muse Spark 1.1 only
- 14
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Muse Spark 1.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.6 Terra only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 25 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Muse Spark 1.1 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 77.44 to 72.57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Muse Spark 1.1's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 88.4 against 80.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 87.4% to 80%. GPT-5.6 Terra does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
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 | GPT-5.6 Terra | Δ | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | GPT-5.6 Terra92.9 | Margin← 30.8 | Muse Spark 1.162.1 |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.6 Terra80.7 | Margin→ 7.7 | Muse Spark 1.188.4 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.6 Terra87.4 | Margin← 7.0 | Muse Spark 1.180.4 |
| Coding | GPT-5.6 Terra63.4 | Margin← 1.9 | Muse Spark 1.161.5 |
| Math | GPT-5.6 Terra80.8 | MarginNo overlap | Muse Spark 1.1Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 87.4%B 80%Winner: GPT-5.6 TerraΔ 7.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.6 Terra scored 87.4%; Muse Spark 1.1 scored 80%. GPT-5.6 Terra wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 63.4%B 61.5%Winner: GPT-5.6 TerraΔ 1.9SWE-bench Pro: GPT-5.6 Terra scored 63.4%; Muse Spark 1.1 scored 61.5%. GPT-5.6 Terra wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.6 Terra | Muse Spark 1.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.6 Terra$2.5 input / $15 output | Muse Spark 1.1Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.6 TerraNot available | Muse Spark 1.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.6 TerraNot available | Muse Spark 1.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.6 Terra1M | Muse Spark 1.11M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.6 Terra wins25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Muse Spark 1.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 87.4% | 80% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 87.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 50.2% | 14.2% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| CyberGymSource | 81.8% | 59.0% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| ExploitGymSource | 23.2% | 0.8% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 53.1% | 75.6% | Muse Spark 1.1 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 47.4% | 37.5% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 54.1% | 43.7% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1581 | 1374 | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 85.2% | 93.1% | Muse Spark 1.1 leads |
| AA ITBenchSource | 51.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 31.8% | 25.2% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 45.6% | 42.8% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 57.6% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 88% | 77.9% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 88.1% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
| Finance Agent v2Source | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 53.3% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 54.7% | Not comparable |
| CybenchSource | — | 92.9% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 863 | Not comparable |
CodingGPT-5.6 Terra wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Muse Spark 1.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 63.4% | 61.5% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 87.4% | 80.0% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| deepSweSource | 69.6% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 55.8% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 64.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 76.7% | 71.3% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.9% | 58.2% | Muse Spark 1.1 leads |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.6 Terra wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Muse Spark 1.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 92.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 92.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 57.7% | 59.3% | Muse Spark 1.1 leads |
| HealthBench HardSource | 32.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 55.0% | 50.6% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.5% | 89.8% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA-HLESource | 41.8% | 45.1% | Muse Spark 1.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -0.2% | 18.0% | Muse Spark 1.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.9% | 40.6% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 85.2% | 38.1% | Muse Spark 1.1 leads |
| HLESource | — | 62.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 52.2% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
MultimodalMuse Spark 1.1 wins6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Muse Spark 1.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.2% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, GPT-5.6 Terra or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 77.44 to 72.57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 87.4% and 80%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.6 Terra or Muse Spark 1.1?
GPT-5.6 Terra has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 62.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GPT-5.6 Terra or Muse Spark 1.1?
GPT-5.6 Terra has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.4 versus 61.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Terra or Muse Spark 1.1?
GPT-5.6 Terra has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 87.4 versus 80.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, GPT-5.6 Terra or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88.4 versus 80.7. GPT-5.6 Terra stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.